PDA

View Full Version : Rex Ryan Looks Depleted...



phinasota
06-13-2012, 05:10 PM
I just watched a rex ryan interview on espn nfl live. He looked almost identicle to sparano in his last year as our hc. he looked down, exauhsted, and just beat. He didn't know what to say about his players, sanchez and tebow. Just kept repeating himself and stumbling over his words, nothing really positive to say. Hinted thathis team isn't a cohesive unit when mentioning his receivers making good catches. A way different looking and sounding hc then when he first got there. I guess sucking worse every year since he got there has caught up to him. I love it! :up:

JETSJETSJETS
06-13-2012, 05:23 PM
I guess sucking worse every year since he got there has caught up to him. I love it! :up:

Seriously? He had one bad season and he's considered "sucking worse every year"?? Sucking worse would be winning the division in one year, then going 7-9, 7-9 and 4-9 in the following seasons. Yeah Sparano sucked as a Dolphins HC. So did Bill Belichick as a Browns HC.

Dolfan5000
06-13-2012, 05:30 PM
When you trade for Tim Tebow and hire Tony Sparano to be your OC that should speak volumes enough.

phinasota
06-14-2012, 07:52 AM
Seriously? He had one bad season and he's considered "sucking worse every year"?? Sucking worse would be winning the division in one year, then going 7-9, 7-9 and 4-9 in the following seasons. Yeah Sparano sucked as a Dolphins HC. So did Bill Belichick as a Browns HC.

Uh yeah seriously. How havent they been getting worse every year? Check your offensive stats each year since he's been there. You have a coach making unrealistic predictions like winning a superbowl and talking mad **** to looking like he did yesterday... he knows theres no cohesion on his team and he created that atmosphere. And he knows it. He allowed it to get to this point where you all are at now and its not a very good point to be at. Im not saying the jets are doomed, even though i would love for you guys to be, im just saying its getting pretty bad up there in NYC for thee jests.

DisturbedShifty
06-14-2012, 08:00 AM
Seriously? He had one bad season and he's considered "sucking worse every year"?? Sucking worse would be winning the division in one year, then going 7-9, 7-9 and 4-9 in the following seasons. Yeah Sparano sucked as a Dolphins HC. So did Bill Belichick as a Browns HC.
As much as it pains me, I have to agree with the Jets fan on this one. They did make to back to back APPEARANCES in the AFC championship game. But to say they have gotten worse each year is just a little TOO homerish. That's not to say he isn't worn out from trying to get this year's team to gel, I believe that. But they had one bad season under Ryan, that doesn't constitute as getting worse each season.

JCane
06-14-2012, 08:10 AM
He looks fatter than ever.

Probably all of that high-calorie Tebow he's been slurping recently.

nyjunc
06-14-2012, 08:25 AM
Uh yeah seriously. How havent they been getting worse every year? Check your offensive stats each year since he's been there. You have a coach making unrealistic predictions like winning a superbowl and talking mad **** to looking like he did yesterday... he knows theres no cohesion on his team and he created that atmosphere. And he knows it. He allowed it to get to this point where you all are at now and its not a very good point to be at. Im not saying the jets are doomed, even though i would love for you guys to be, im just saying its getting pretty bad up there in NYC for thee jests.

Did we get worse last year? of course, we had ONE bad year(at 8-8 which you guys haven't seen in years) but to say we got worse each year is just silly.

How is 9-7 title game app to 11-5 title game app getting worse?

I get that you guys hate the Jets and want these things to happen but man you guys are dreaming.


He looks fatter than ever.

Probably all of that high-calorie Tebow he's been slurping recently.

Have you actually seen him recently? He's wasting away to nothing. He's thinner than ever.

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/original-1.jpg

phinasota
06-14-2012, 08:39 AM
As much as it pains me, I have to agree with the Jets fan on this one. They did make to back to back APPEARANCES in the AFC championship game. But to say they have gotten worse each year is just a little TOO homerish. That's not to say he isn't worn out from trying to get this year's team to gel, I believe that. But they had one bad season under Ryan, that doesn't constitute as getting worse each season.

Ok, let me clear this up a little. I was mainly talking about the team being a "team". Each year since he's been there they have been getting worse in that aspect and last year all that came to light. But because of the lack of teamsmanship... and the right leadership, there are going to get worse every year and I think they have. In 09 the jets shoulda shoulda lost that game to the chargers. Sanchez only threw for a hundred yards. If the chargers kicker didnt miss all those field goals the jets lose. the d won that game not the o. they barely eeked by the colts in 2010. sanchez didnt even throw a td in that game. a friggan field goal won it. and last year they didnt make it. the d is good thats for sure, but the offense has not really lived up to the names on paper.

JCane
06-14-2012, 08:50 AM
Looks like junc got an A in Photoshop class.

Can you photoshop a couple of Super Bowl trophies in Sanchez's hands?

Use big brother Eli as a template.

nyjunc
06-14-2012, 08:51 AM
Ok, let me clear this up a little. I was mainly talking about the team being a "team". Each year since he's been there they have been getting worse in that aspect and last year all that came to light. But because of the lack of teamsmanship... and the right leadership, there are going to get worse every year and I think they have. In 09 the jets shoulda shoulda lost that game to the chargers. Sanchez only threw for a hundred yards. If the chargers kicker didnt miss all those field goals the jets lose. the d won that game not the o. they barely eeked by the colts in 2010. sanchez didnt even throw a td in that game. a friggan field goal won it. and last year they didnt make it. the d is good thats for sure, but the offense has not really lived up to the names on paper.

Sanchez played well in that SD game, he made big plays to help us win. Rivers had much better #s, he was better than Rivers that day.

kaeding missed 2 makeable FGs, if he makes 1 the game plays out differently b/c late the Jets would have been up 17-10 instead of 17-7 and wouldn't have been in prevent mode allowing SD to score a TD.

He didn't throw a TD against Indy, he only led them to the GW FG on the road taking over w/ less than a minute to play getting a chip shot FG for his K.

What does all this have to do w/ the team getting worse? How do you get worse going from 9-7 title game app to 11-5 title game app beating an even better team in the div rd more convincingly than the year before?

The team had one bad year, that's it. We'll see this year if it is a trend or a 1 year thing. If I was betting man I'd bet one year thing, this team is going to be really good barring disastrous injuries.

---------- Post added at 08:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 AM ----------


Looks like junc got an A in Photoshop class.

Can you photoshop a couple of Super Bowl trophies in Sanchez's hands?

Use big brother Eli as a template.

Much like Rex losing weight Sanchez will have a SB trophy in his hands at some point. Through 3 years Eli had zero playoff wins, Sanchez has 4. Give the man time.

phinasota
06-14-2012, 09:46 AM
What does all this have to do w/ the team getting worse? How do you get worse going from 9-7 title game app to 11-5 title game app beating an even better team in the div rd more convincingly than the year before?
.

i was originally just bringning up the fact that rex looks more than oerwhelmed these days and that as a team things have been getting worse in that aspect. i do see it to be a trend as long as ryan is HC. who knows maybe it changes but i dont see it. and i love seeing the blob look defeated!

nyjunc
06-14-2012, 09:49 AM
i was originally just bringning up the fact that rex looks more than oerwhelmed these days and that as a team things have been getting worse in that aspect. i do see it to be a trend as long as ryan is HC. who knows maybe it changes but i dont see it. and i love seeing the blob look defeated!

The only thing Rex looks is thinner, he is the same confident guy he always is. I don't think one bad stretch to end 2011 is going to affect him.

Kinzua
06-14-2012, 10:04 AM
Much like Rex losing weight Sanchez will have a SB trophy in his hands at some point.Through 3 years Eli had zero playoff wins, Sanchez has 4. Give the man time.

Oh, here we go again with "Junc's selective time frames": "through 3 years" :lol2: Eli with the Gnats has 2 SB rings in the last 4 years. The Jests have 0 during that time, Sanchez or no Sanchez.

How much time does Sanchez get? Another 43 years plus? :sidelol:

nyjunc
06-14-2012, 10:17 AM
Oh, here we go again with "Junc's selective time frames": "through 3 years" :lol2: Eli with the Gnats has 2 SB rings in the last 4 years. The Jests have 0 during that time, Sanchez or no Sanchez.

How much time does Sanchez get? Another 43 years plus? :sidelol:

Through 3 seasons in the NFL Sanchez and Eli had almost identical #s, the biggest difference is Sanchez helped his team win 4 playoff games and Eli helped his team win ZERO.

You think 3 years is fair to judge a QB? Peyton didn't win a playoff game until his 6th season. Sanchez may never win a SB but he's been close twice and in both title games he wasn't the reason we lost. As long as the parts around him are good he can win a SB.

After 3 seasons:

Sanchez: 782-1414 yds, 9209 yds, 55.3 %, 55 TDs, 51 INTs, 27-20 record in reg season, 4-2 in postseason 2 title game apps
Eli: 690-1276, 8049 yds, , 54%, 54 TDs, 44 INTs, 20-19 record in reg season, 0-2 in postseason(including being shut out at HOME)

heck even a year later when they won the SB Eli threw 23 TDs and 20 INTs, was a 56% passer but b/c Sanchez had 3 abd games to end 2011 his career is over.

Didn't you hear/ they brought in Tim tebow to start. All teams want their starters to bulk up to 250 lbs and be the upman on punts.:lol2:

JETSJETSJETS
06-15-2012, 02:34 PM
In 09 the jets shoulda shoulda lost that game to the chargers. Sanchez only threw for a hundred yards. If the chargers kicker didnt miss all those field goals the jets lose. the d won that game not the o.

Kaeding missed two FGs. Third was a 57 yarder as time expired. It was short, so not really a miss, just a prayer. Even if Kaeding makes those other two kicks, Chargers go down 17-13 with two minutes left. I can pretty much bet you that Jets don't go in to prevent D (as they did when they had the 17-7 lead with 2 mins left). And the way the Jets D played that game, I don't think Chargers get a TD, but too many IFS to back ur own statement up. And whats wrong with the D winning the game? Did u forget that Greene ran for over a 100 yards and scored the icing TD?


they barely eeked by the colts in 2010. sanchez didnt even throw a td in that game. a friggan field goal won it. and last year they didnt make it. the d is good thats for sure, but the offense has not really lived up to the names on paper. Lol @ Sanchez not throwing a TD. "Friggan" FGs won the Patriots a few SBs.

JETSJETSJETS
06-15-2012, 02:38 PM
Oh, here we go again with "Junc's selective time frames": "through 3 years" :lol2: Eli with the Gnats has 2 SB rings in the last 4 years. The Jests have 0 during that time, Sanchez or no Sanchez.

How much time does Sanchez get? Another 43 years plus? :sidelol:

How much time do the Bills need? Another dozens of SB appearances? They'll still fail.

MP-Omnis
06-15-2012, 02:47 PM
He's lost a lot of weight and even though he's a Jet he still deserves his props. Come on, guys, you can't hate on that.

The New Guy
06-16-2012, 12:35 PM
Kaeding missed two FGs. Third was a 57 yarder as time expired. It was short, so not really a miss, just a prayer. Even if Kaeding makes those other two kicks, Chargers go down 17-13 with two minutes left. I can pretty much bet you that Jets don't go in to prevent D (as they did when they had the 17-7 lead with 2 mins left). And the way the Jets D played that game, I don't think Chargers get a TD, but too many IFS to back ur own statement up. And whats wrong with the D winning the game? Did u forget that Greene ran for over a 100 yards and scored the icing TD?


So the game changes, but only to the Jets benefit?

SD missed the first easy field goal (37 yards) on their second possession of the game. No one scored until SD scored a TD in the second quarter. It would have been 10-0 SD. The Jets don't score until the 3rd making it 7-3 SD. Right at the end of the 3rd SD turns it over out of their own endzone. That gave the ball to the Jets on the SD 15 which led to the Jets first TD of the game. You don't think SD plays that series a little different if it is 10-3? Especially considering that the Jets only managed to score just 3 points in 3 quarters? Even if it played out the same, it would have been 10-10 had SD made the first field goal. The Jets next score is at the 7:17 mark in the 4th making the score 17-7 (17-10 with the field goal). On SD next possession they drive into field goal range, and what do you know, another missed field goal. It would have been 17-13 with the 2 easy FGs. The Jets tried to run out the clock, but could not. SD gets the ball back and scores what could have been the game winner. Let me guess, SD never would have scored that TD because the Jets wouldn't have gone into prevent. Isn't a prevent defense supposed to stop big plays? Why was SD able to gain 11 yards, 37 yards, and 19 yards in their first 3 plays of that last series?

That scenario doesn't even include the 57 yard miss. You can call that 57 yard attempt a prayer, but he has made a 57 yard FG before and kicked a 54 yard FG with plenty of room to spare just a couple of weeks before the playoffs. Had he made those FGs, I think it is safer to say the outcome changes than saying the Jets still win regardless.

felhandkra
06-16-2012, 02:26 PM
blowhard

Funky Fin
06-16-2012, 02:51 PM
Yeah Sparano sucked as a Dolphins HC. So did Bill Belichick as a Browns HC.

LOLOLOL. Did I really just read a jest fan compare Sparano to Bilichick. :lol:

nyjunc
06-18-2012, 08:57 AM
So the game changes, but only to the Jets benefit?

SD missed the first easy field goal (37 yards) on their second possession of the game. No one scored until SD scored a TD in the second quarter. It would have been 10-0 SD. The Jets don't score until the 3rd making it 7-3 SD. Right at the end of the 3rd SD turns it over out of their own endzone. That gave the ball to the Jets on the SD 15 which led to the Jets first TD of the game. You don't think SD plays that series a little different if it is 10-3? Especially considering that the Jets only managed to score just 3 points in 3 quarters? Even if it played out the same, it would have been 10-10 had SD made the first field goal. The Jets next score is at the 7:17 mark in the 4th making the score 17-7 (17-10 with the field goal). On SD next possession they drive into field goal range, and what do you know, another missed field goal. It would have been 17-13 with the 2 easy FGs. The Jets tried to run out the clock, but could not. SD gets the ball back and scores what could have been the game winner. Let me guess, SD never would have scored that TD because the Jets wouldn't have gone into prevent. Isn't a prevent defense supposed to stop big plays? Why was SD able to gain 11 yards, 37 yards, and 19 yards in their first 3 plays of that last series?

That scenario doesn't even include the 57 yard miss. You can call that 57 yard attempt a prayer, but he has made a 57 yard FG before and kicked a 54 yard FG with plenty of room to spare just a couple of weeks before the playoffs. Had he made those FGs, I think it is safer to say the outcome changes than saying the Jets still win regardless.

You are assuming the game plays out exactly the same. The bottom line is that missed FGs are part of the game, we didn't get extra points for our K missing 2 the next week in the title game. The team that played better in SD won the game and deserved to win no matter how much jealous div rivals hine about the game.

The New Guy
06-18-2012, 12:28 PM
You are assuming the game plays out exactly the same. The bottom line is that missed FGs are part of the game, we didn't get extra points for our K missing 2 the next week in the title game. The team that played better in SD won the game and deserved to win no matter how much jealous div rivals hine about the game.

You must have just skimmed through my post because my point was the exact opposite. JetsJets is the one who assumes that the game plays out the exact same way when he said that SD still goes down 17 to 13 (without the 2 missed Fgs) My point was the game does change, but not only for the Jets benefit. The Jets got their first TD off a turnover (which gave the Jets the ball on the SD 15) when SD was only up 4. I think it is safe to say that SD plays that series a little more conservatively up 7 or 10 points instead of just 4.

3 missed FGs in a 3 point loss is a little different than 2 missed FGs in a 13 point loss. What is the argument for how the game changes for the Jets if they make the two FGs in the Colts game? Do the Jets go into a prevent up 20 to 6 instead of 17 to 6 and stop the Colts from scoring before halftime? I thought the Jets prevent was why SD scored on them so easily? You can't have it both ways. Do the 2 FGs keep the Jets from being shutout in the 2nd half and stop the Colts from scoring 17 unanswered? I highly doubt it.

nyjunc
06-18-2012, 12:39 PM
You must have just skimmed through my post because my point was the exact opposite. JetsJets is the one who assumes that the game plays out the exact same way when he said that SD still goes down 17 to 13 (without the 2 missed Fgs) My point was the game does change, but not only for the Jets benefit. The Jets got their first TD off a turnover (which gave the Jets the ball on the SD 15) when SD was only up 4. I think it is safe to say that SD plays that series a little more conservatively up 7 or 10 points instead of just 4.

3 missed FGs in a 3 point loss is a little different than 2 missed FGs in a 13 point loss. What is the argument for how the game changes for the Jets if they make the two FGs in the Colts game? Do the Jets go into a prevent up 20 to 6 instead of 17 to 6 and stop the Colts from scoring before halftime? I thought the Jets prevent was why SD scored on them so easily? You can't have it both ways. Do the 2 FGs keep the Jets from being shutout in the 2nd half and stop the Colts from scoring 17 unanswered? I highly doubt it.

The Jets missed a FG w/ the game 0-0 and then up 17-13, 20-13 is very different from 17-13. We have no idea how that game ends but missed FGs are part of the game. Indy outplayed us and we outplayed SD the week before.

The New Guy
06-18-2012, 12:47 PM
The Jets missed a FG w/ the game 0-0 and then up 17-13, 20-13 is very different from 17-13. We have no idea how that game ends but missed FGs are part of the game. Indy outplayed us and we outplayed SD the week before.

Being down 11 points didn't stop the Colts from scoring before the half, so I doubt being down 7, or even 10 keeps them from scoring in the 2nd half. Missed FGs are part of the game, and missing 3 of them in a 3 point game is a huge reason why SD lost.

nyjunc
06-18-2012, 01:14 PM
Being down 11 points didn't stop the Colts from scoring before the half, so I doubt being down 7, or even 10 keeps them from scoring in the 2nd half. Missed FGs are part of the game, and missing 3 of them in a 3 point game is a huge reason why SD lost.

That and the Jets D completely shut down SD's high flying offense and the jets O scored 17 in the 2nd half. The only pts SD had in the 2nd half came on a drive where the Jets were playing prevent, SD was struggling to move it all game long. It's nice to have these excuses to try tio take credit away from the Jets but the bottom line is they were the better team that day and earned their win over the hottest team in the league.

The New Guy
06-18-2012, 03:17 PM
That and the Jets D completely shut down SD's high flying offense and the jets O scored 17 in the 2nd half. The only pts SD had in the 2nd half came on a drive where the Jets were playing prevent, SD was struggling to move it all game long. It's nice to have these excuses to try tio take credit away from the Jets but the bottom line is they were the better team that day and earned their win over the hottest team in the league.

How is it trying to take credit away from the Jets when it is what actually happened in the game. SD missed 3 FGs in a 3 point loss. I don't buy the prevent excuse, but you can't claim that is the only way the game changes if SD makes those FGs. It goes both ways. If SD makes those FGs, they most likely do not turn the ball over on the SD 15 which led to the Jets first TD.

IMO, SD was an overrated team but they were still a better team than the Jets. 10 of SDs 13 wins came from teams with a losing record, but that is better than losing 6 out of 7 and legitimately beating only 1 playoff bound team. The Jets were better that day becasue they made less mistakes. SD really shot themselves in the foot with botched FGs and bad turnovers. Sometimes a team wins a game and sometimes the other team loses the game. To me, SD was a case of the other team losing the game.

nyjunc
06-18-2012, 03:22 PM
How is it trying to take credit away from the Jets when it is what actually happened in the game. SD missed 3 FGs in a 3 point loss. I don't buy the prevent excuse, but you can't claim that is the only way the game changes if SD makes those FGs. It goes both ways. If SD makes those FGs, they most likely do not turn the ball over on the SD 15 which led to the Jets first TD.

IMO, SD was an overrated team but they were still a better team than the Jets. 10 of SDs 13 wins came from teams with a losing record, but that is better than losing 6 out of 7 and legitimately beating only 1 playoff bound team. The Jets were better that day becasue they made less mistakes. SD really shot themselves in the foot with botched FGs and bad turnovers. Sometimes a team wins a game and sometimes the other team loses the game. To me, SD was a case of the other team losing the game.

you are making excuses and making it sound like SD beat themselves while the jets didn't deserve it.

NE didn't beat a team w/ a winning record all reg season this past year, that happens sometimes. SD was the hottest team in the league and if they beat us would have had a great shot to beat Indy(who they had beaten the 2 previous years).

The New Guy
06-18-2012, 03:56 PM
you are making excuses and making it sound like SD beat themselves while the jets didn't deserve it.

NE didn't beat a team w/ a winning record all reg season this past year, that happens sometimes. SD was the hottest team in the league and if they beat us would have had a great shot to beat Indy(who they had beaten the 2 previous years).

SD did beat themselves with turnovers in bad spots and missed FGs. It is what it is. If that takes credit away from the Jets, I can't help that. What does NE not beating a team with a winning record have to do with it? Is it because NE made it to the Super Bowl. Didn't you say NE had it easy in the playoffs?


.500 team int he div rd, host Joe Flacco then face a 9-7 team for the title.

I will add that Bal dropped a potential game winning TD and then missed a crucial FG that would have tied the game.

So, they didn't beat a single team with a winning record in the regular season and had an easy road to the Super Bowl. How does this prove that SD wasn't overrated? SD lost to a 9-7* Jets team in their first playoff game.

nyjunc
06-18-2012, 04:16 PM
SD did beat themselves with turnovers in bad spots and missed FGs. It is what it is. If that takes credit away from the Jets, I can't help that. What does NE not beating a team with a winning record have to do with it? Is it because NE made it to the Super Bowl. Didn't you say NE had it easy in the playoffs?



I will add that Bal dropped a potential game winning TD and then missed a crucial FG that would have tied the game.

So, they didn't beat a single team with a winning record in the regular season and had an easy road to the Super Bowl. How does this prove that SD wasn't overrated? SD lost to a 9-7* Jets team in their first playoff game.

The Jets beat SD, SD didn't beat themselves. SD and everyone else thought they would roll over us but our D shut down their O and our O scored 17 2nd half pts. Sure they missed 2 makeable FGs, it's part of the game. We were still winning b/c we were better that day and b/c AD had a choker at QB.

Did NE win? we can play the what if game all day, if Welker catches that ball NE wins the SB but he dropped it.

The New Guy
06-18-2012, 04:36 PM
The Jets beat SD, SD didn't beat themselves. SD and everyone else thought they would roll over us but our D shut down their O and our O scored 17 2nd half pts. Sure they missed 2 makeable FGs, it's part of the game. We were still winning b/c we were better that day and b/c AD had a choker at QB.

Did NE win? we can play the what if game all day, if Welker catches that ball NE wins the SB but he dropped it.

Anytime a team turns the ball over on their own 15 leading in the 3rd (which leads to 7 points for the other team) and also misses 3 FGs in a 3 point loss, they beat themselves. The Jets slowed SDs offense, but they got help with 3 missed FGs. SD also held the Jets O to just 3 points in 3 quarters. It wasn't until SD turned the ball over on their own 15 that the Jets scored a TD. The other came late in the 4th on a big run from Greene. Had SD made those FGs it is likely a different outcome.


I still fail to see how NE not beating a team with a winning record in the regular season and making it to the Super Bowl, makes SD (A team that lost to a 9-7* Jets team in their first playoff game) a good team. Especially when you say NE had it easy in the playoffs and faced a 9-7 team for the title.

nyjunc
06-18-2012, 04:53 PM
Anytime a team turns the ball over on their own 15 leading in the 3rd (which leads to 7 points for the other team) and also misses 3 FGs in a 3 point loss, they beat themselves. The Jets slowed SDs offense, but they got help with 3 missed FGs. SD also held the Jets O to just 3 points in 3 quarters. It wasn't until SD turned the ball over on their own 15 that the Jets scored a TD. The other came late in the 4th on a big run from Greene. Had SD made those FGs it is likely a different outcome.


I still fail to see how NE not beating a team with a winning record in the regular season and making it to the Super Bowl, makes SD (A team that lost to a 9-7* Jets team in their first playoff game) a good team. Especially when you say NE had it easy in the playoffs and faced a 9-7 team for the title.

2 makebale FGs and the Jets D didn't have any hand in confusing and pressuring Rivers into that INT? Come on, you are better than this.

You were calling SD overrated b/c of the teams they beat, I simply stated a fact that NE beat zero winning teams in the reg season.

The New Guy
06-18-2012, 05:17 PM
2 makebale FGs and the Jets D didn't have any hand in confusing and pressuring Rivers into that INT? Come on, you are better than this.

You were calling SD overrated b/c of the teams they beat, I simply stated a fact that NE beat zero winning teams in the reg season.

I don't know if Rivers threw the pick becasue the Jets confused him or if it was simply a bad throw. It was a poor decision either way. The point is, that turnover probably never happens if they are up 10-3 or 13-3 in the 3rd with the made FGs. Those missed FGs were key to the Jets winning. I don't know why that is so hard to admit.

So, NE wasn't overrated becasue they went to the Super Bowl? You said yourself that they had an easy road. That is why I don't understand your point. Regardless, SD lost their first playoff game against a team that was at best average in the regular season. When you consider that 10 of their 13 wins were from teams with a losing record and the fact that they lost their first playoff game, I would say that makes them overrated.

Funky Fin
06-18-2012, 06:18 PM
The Jets beat SD, SD didn't beat themselves. SD and everyone else thought they would roll over us but our D shut down their O and our O scored 17 2nd half pts. Sure they missed 2 makeable FGs, it's part of the game. We were still winning b/c we were better that day and b/c AD had a choker at QB.

Did NE win? we can play the what if game all day, if Welker catches that ball NE wins the SB but he dropped it.

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/shovelingpoop-1.jpg

nyjunc
06-19-2012, 08:22 AM
I don't know if Rivers threw the pick becasue the Jets confused him or if it was simply a bad throw. It was a poor decision either way. The point is, that turnover probably never happens if they are up 10-3 or 13-3 in the 3rd with the made FGs. Those missed FGs were key to the Jets winning. I don't know why that is so hard to admit.

So, NE wasn't overrated becasue they went to the Super Bowl? You said yourself that they had an easy road. That is why I don't understand your point. Regardless, SD lost their first playoff game against a team that was at best average in the regular season. When you consider that 10 of their 13 wins were from teams with a losing record and the fact that they lost their first playoff game, I would say that makes them overrated.

Of course it was a poor decision brought on by confusion, pressure from the D and the way Rivers always plays in big games which is why I think Rivers is vastly overrated.

How do you know they score that first TD if they make the first FG? it changes the game, changes FP, who knows what happens? All that we do know is that they missed the 2 FGs and we won 17-14.

NE did have an easy road but they took care of business, it happens sometimes.

SD lost in the playoffs to a team that won 2 playoff games and held a lead in the 2nd half of the title game. It's not like they lost to the '08 dolphins.

3 of their 13 wins came from teams w/ winning records? That's pretty good, right? The Giants beat ONE team w/ a winning record last year(at NE), 2 years ago GB beat only 4 teams(one was Chi w/ nothing to play for in week 17- I've always heard this excuse for the jets). SD beat 3 teams including 2 division champs.

Kinzua
06-19-2012, 09:38 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/shovelingpoop-1.jpg

Well said!!!!!

nyjunc
06-19-2012, 09:44 AM
Well said!!!!!

by the jealous div rivals doing anything they can to discredit the team that has been much more successful than their two teams have been in the last decade plus.

Kinzua
06-19-2012, 11:02 AM
by the jealous div rivals doing anything they can to discredit the team that has been much more successful than their two teams have been in the last decade plus.

Jealous? Really? Because people don't buy your argument that SD didn't beat themselves in a playoff game 3 years ago when their FG kicker missed 3 FGs??? :sidelol:

Maybe you should stop trying to pretend that the might Jests are perfect. That title goes to the Miami Dolphins because they actually were 1972.

nyjunc
06-19-2012, 11:05 AM
Jealous? Really? Because people don't buy your argument that SD didn't beat themselves in a playoff game 3 years ago when their FG kicker missed 3 FGs??? :sidelol:

Maybe you should stop trying to pretend that the might Jests are perfect. That title goes to the Miami Dolphins because they actually were 1972.

The kicker missed 2 makeable FGs that may or may not have made a difference. The Jets were the better team that day, the Jets deserved the win.

It's sad how you are trying to kiss up to the dolphin fans.

I don't pretend the jets are perfect, I am honest in my evaluations of the team which is something you guys are not w/ your jealousy.

The New Guy
06-19-2012, 03:08 PM
Of course it was a poor decision brought on by confusion, pressure from the D and the way Rivers always plays in big games which is why I think Rivers is vastly overrated.

How do you know they score that first TD if they make the first FG? it changes the game, changes FP, who knows what happens? All that we do know is that they missed the 2 FGs and we won 17-14.

NE did have an easy road but they took care of business, it happens sometimes.

SD lost in the playoffs to a team that won 2 playoff games and held a lead in the 2nd half of the title game. It's not like they lost to the '08 dolphins.

3 of their 13 wins came from teams w/ winning records? That's pretty good, right? The Giants beat ONE team w/ a winning record last year(at NE), 2 years ago GB beat only 4 teams(one was Chi w/ nothing to play for in week 17- I've always heard this excuse for the jets). SD beat 3 teams including 2 division champs.

So, any turnover the Jets get is always becasue the Jets forced it. The QBs the Jets face never makes a bad throw / decision on their own? I'm surprised you haven't given the Jets STs credit for SD missing the 3 FGs. :chuckle:

I don't see any reason why the Jets D would play any better down 3 (with the made FG) as opposed to being tied 0-0. The missed FG changed FP for the Jets. It gave the Jets the ball on their 26 yard line. The only time SD kicked the ball off, the Jets started on their own 16 Yard line. There is no valid reason why SD wouldn't have scored that first TD had they made the FG. There are many more valid reasons why SD would not have turned the ball over and given the Jets the first TD of the game had they made those FGs.

NE took care of business against an 8-8 team in the division round and barley squeaked by Bal with the help of Bal. They went on to lose to a 9-7 Giants team. I give NE more credit than SD because even though they didn't beat a single team with a winning record during the regular season, at least they won their 2 playoff games. SD didn't.

SD lost to a Jets team that had lost 6 out of 7 during the regular season and at that time had won 1 (not 2) playoff game against a dead Bengal team. It is funny how you constantly put down the 08 Dolphins talking about the easy schedule and getting beat by Bal in their first playoff game, but try to uplift SD when 80% of their wins were from teams with a losing record and they lost to a team that was much worse than Bal in their first playoff game.

I don't care how many bad teams the Giants or Packers beat because they won the Super Bowl. It is a little different when you lose your first playoff game against a mediocre team. That kind of tells me your great record came from beating bad teams and you weren't really that good.

nyjunc
06-19-2012, 03:30 PM
So, any turnover the Jets get is always becasue the Jets forced it. The QBs the Jets face never makes a bad throw / decision on their own? I'm surprised you haven't given the Jets STs credit for SD missing the 3 FGs. :chuckle:

I don't see any reason why the Jets D would play any better down 3 (with the made FG) as opposed to being tied 0-0. The missed FG changed FP for the Jets. It gave the Jets the ball on their 26 yard line. The only time SD kicked the ball off, the Jets started on their own 16 Yard line. There is no valid reason why SD wouldn't have scored that first TD had they made the FG. There are many more valid reasons why SD would not have turned the ball over and given the Jets the first TD of the game had they made those FGs.

NE took care of business against an 8-8 team in the division round and barley squeaked by Bal with the help of Bal. They went on to lose to a 9-7 Giants team. I give NE more credit than SD because even though they didn't beat a single team with a winning record during the regular season, at least they won their 2 playoff games. SD didn't.

SD lost to a Jets team that had lost 6 out of 7 during the regular season and at that time had won 1 (not 2) playoff game against a dead Bengal team. It is funny how you constantly put down the 08 Dolphins talking about the easy schedule and getting beat by Bal in their first playoff game, but try to uplift SD when 80% of their wins were from teams with a losing record and they lost to a team that was much worse than Bal in their first playoff game.

I don't care how many bad teams the Giants or Packers beat because they won the Super Bowl. It is a little different when you lose your first playoff game against a mediocre team. That kind of tells me your great record came from beating bad teams and you weren't really that good.

Sometimes it's an unforced error but the Jets had Rivers running scared most of the game, he was backed up to his GL and saw pressure and threw it up for grabs. I credit the D for that.

The Jets had an excellent KR team, b/c we had a 9 yd return to the 16 one time doesn't mean it would have happened again. Brad Smith's other KR was 36 yds.

NE made the SB and had a great chance to win, that's all that matters.

The jets came in winning 3 straight and 6 of 7, their 6 of 7 losing stretch was long gone.

SD was the hottest team in the league, they were the favorite in the AFC.

The 2008 Ravens beat 3 teams w/ winning records too and one was the inflated dolphins record, another was a playoff-less Cowboy team. They beat one playoff bound team and zero div champs. SD beat 2 div champs and 3 playoff bound teams. Does this end this silly discussion now?

Vaark
06-19-2012, 03:58 PM
Sometimes it's an unforced error but the Jets had Rivers running scared most of the game, he was backed up to his GL and saw pressure and threw it up for grabs. I credit the D for that.

The Jets had an excellent KR team, b/c we had a 9 yd return to the 16 one time doesn't mean it would have happened again. Brad Smith's other KR was 36 yds.

NE made the SB and had a great chance to win, that's all that matters.

The jets came in winning 3 straight and 6 of 7, their 6 of 7 losing stretch was long gone.

SD was the hottest team in the league, they were the favorite in the AFC.

The 2008 Ravens beat 3 teams w/ winning records too and one was the inflated dolphins record, another was a playoff-less Cowboy team. They beat one playoff bound team and zero div champs. SD beat 2 div champs and 3 playoff bound teams. Does this end this silly discussion now?

Actually the Jest lost the game 14 they legitimately needed to win against a dead Atlanta at home... and then there were 2 knees. I might concede they'd have beaten the Bengals even if the game wasn't meaningless for them considering how dead they were over their last 7 games and how easily the jest beat them in the playoffs as a result. However, no way the jest beat a team in Ind whose starters outscored them 45-27 in about a 1 1/'3rd games when actually trying and having Curtis Painter and his 4QBR under center, including 24-0 in the playoffs last 31 minutes.

So if thinking that games 15& 16 constituted a "winning streak" and that losing to Atlanta was an aberration makes you sleep at night thinking that your team deserved anything more than was accomplished by Rafael Palmeiero in BB, then go ahead; just don't try to convince others who know better that the 09 jest were exponentially more decent than they were step in **** lucky!!!. :idk:

Oh and that SD game would have ended 14-10 if not for Shon Greene's 53 yd run, even with Kaeding crapping the bed almost as bad as did Sanchez.

nyjunc
06-19-2012, 04:02 PM
the fact that you think sanchez had a bad game at SD tells me all I need to know. It's not worth discussing w/ you, you make too many excuses.

The New Guy
06-19-2012, 04:04 PM
Sometimes it's an unforced error but the Jets had Rivers running scared most of the game, he was backed up to his GL and saw pressure and threw it up for grabs. I credit the D for that.

The Jets had an excellent KR team, b/c we had a 9 yd return to the 16 one time doesn't mean it would have happened again. Brad Smith's other KR was 36 yds.

NE made the SB and had a great chance to win, that's all that matters.

The jets came in winning 3 straight and 6 of 7, their 6 of 7 losing stretch was long gone.

SD was the hottest team in the league, they were the favorite in the AFC.

The 2008 Ravens beat 3 teams w/ winning records too and one was the inflated dolphins record, another was a playoff-less Cowboy team. They beat one playoff bound team and zero div champs. SD beat 2 div champs and 3 playoff bound teams. Does this end this silly discussion now?

You credit the Jets D for everything. Rivers threw it right to Leonard. It doesn't look like the Jets did anything to force that turnover. Just becasue the Jets had a good return to their 40 doesn't mean they would have had another good return, anymore than when they had the bad return to their 9 means they would have another bad return. SD started on their own 31 when they scored that first TD, so I don't see how FP would have changed so drastically from a made FG that SD wouldn't have been able to score. I think that is a bit of a reach.


NE made the Super Bowl, and Bal made it to the AFCC game. That is a little different than losing your first playoff game to a 9-7* Jets team. The 2 division champs and 3 playoff bound teams that SD beat were Dal, Phi, and Cincy. 3 weak playoff teams. The funny part about this debate is that you would be arguing how overrated SD was if it happened to be the Dolphins at 13-3 (with 80% of the wins coming from teams with a losing record) and losing their first playoff game to an average team.

Vaark
06-19-2012, 04:06 PM
the fact that you think sanchez had a bad game at SD tells me all I need to know. It's not worth discussing w/ you, you make too many excuses.

oh my god.. you declaring that someone else makes too many excuses when faced with facts and college freshman level applied Logic 101 says more about you than it does about me. Sorry, but of course you're one of the few on here that can't see that. Again, trying to count to 2 meaningless games, especially one you were losing to a team that looked like they were gonna go undefeated if they tried as "wins" is delusional.

nyjunc
06-19-2012, 04:11 PM
You credit the Jets D for everything. Rivers threw it right to Leonard. It doesn't look like the Jets did anything to force that turnover. Just becasue the Jets had a good return to their 40 doesn't mean they would have had another good return, anymore than when they had the bad return to their 9 means they would have another bad return. SD started on their own 31 when they scored that first TD, so I don't see how FP would have changed so drastically from a made FG that SD wouldn't have been able to score. I think that is a bit of a reach.


NE made the Super Bowl, and Bal made it to the AFCC game. That is a little different than losing your first playoff game to a 9-7* Jets team. The 2 division champs and 3 playoff bound teams that SD beat were Dal, Phi, and Cincy. 3 weak playoff teams. The funny part about this debate is that you would be arguing how overrated SD was if it happened to be the Dolphins at 13-3 (with 80% of the wins coming from teams with a losing record) and losing their first playoff game to an average team.

Nah, they didn't confuse Rivers then pressure him into that throw. It was all b/c Rivetrs just felt like throwing it to the opposing team.

Brad Smith averaged 31 yds per return in 2009, there was a much better chance he was going to have a 20+ yd return than another under 10 return.

Bal got to play Miami, if SD plays Miami they make the 2009 championship Game. Unfortunatetly for them they played a much better team.

SD had won playoff games 2 straight years, were in the title game in '07, div rd in '08. If Miami did that and lost in '09 w/ a 13-3 record I'd make fun of them but I don't think I'd make all the pathetic excuses you guys makes. Fortunately we don't have to worry about Miami ever going 13-3.:lol:

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 PM ----------


oh my god.. you declaring that someone else makes too many excuses when faced with facts and college freshman level applied Logic 101 says more about you than it does about me. Sorry, but of course you're one of the few on here that can't see that. Again, trying to count to 2 meaningless games, especially one you were losing to a team that looked like they were gonna go undefeated if they tried as "wins" is delusional.


Please stop, all you do is make excuses for the jets success and dolphins failures. You are even doing it here whining about the qtr and half of Indy backups in a 5 pt game and Cincy removing their starts in the 2nd half trailing 27-0.

Vaark
06-19-2012, 04:20 PM
Nah, they didn't confuse Rivers then pressure him into that throw. It was all b/c Rivetrs just felt like throwing it to the opposing team.

Brad Smith averaged 31 yds per return in 2009, there was a much better chance he was going to have a 20+ yd return than another under 10 return.

Bal got to play Miami, if SD plays Miami they make the 2009 championship Game. Unfortunatetly for them they played a much better team.

SD had won playoff games 2 straight years, were in the title game in '07, div rd in '08. If Miami did that and lost in '09 w/ a 13-3 record I'd make fun of them but I don't think I'd make all the pathetic excuses you guys makes. Fortunately we don't have to worry about Miami ever going 13-3.:lol:

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 PM ----------



Please stop, all you do is make excuses for the jets success and dolphins failures. You are even doing it here whining about the qtr and half of Indy backups in a 5 pt game and Cincy removing their starts in the 2nd half trailing 27-0.

I gave you credit for that Cincy win because they sucked by the time they got to you - both times. But no way am I standing by letting you delude others that the game against Indy, a team that well could have gone undefeated, was anything other than a meaningless game and at best the jest and their flawed season would have been the same 8-8 that year that the Giants you compare them to ended up - main difference being that the AFCE had 1 legitimate winning team in NE and the NFCE had 2 11 game winning teams. Both the giants and jest sucked and blew the games they legitimately needed to win when it really counted - only difference is that the giants didn't get 2 teams that decided it was more beneficial to lay down for them than actually have their starters try to win. So I gave you credit for Cinci and I gave you partial credit for being a good but not great team in 2010 since you never won a division against your rivals.. and yes I am not beyond giving credit when it's due, so long as it's deserved, earned, legitimate and not gifted.

Your problem is you parse, slice and dice data to suit your arguments; you no doubt even convince yourself that because in your head, these half-baked justifications seem valid, they're not gonna be challenged as BS by many of the non partisan fans you try to shovel that **** to; Just doesn't work;

nyjunc
06-19-2012, 04:48 PM
I gave you credit for that Cincy win because they sucked by the time they got to you - both times. But no way am I standing by letting you delude others that the game against Indy, a team that well could have gone undefeated, was anything other than a meaningless game and at best the jest and their flawed season would have been the same 8-8 that year that the Giants you compare them to ended up - main difference being that the AFCE had 1 legitimate winning team in NE and the NFCE had 2 11 game winning teams. Both the giants and jest sucked and blew the games they legitimately needed to win when it really counted - only difference is that the giants didn't get 2 teams that decided it was more beneficial to lay down for them than actually have their starters try to win. So I gave you credit for Cinci and I gave you partial credit for being a good but not great team in 2010 since you never won a division against your rivals.. and yes I am not beyond giving credit when it's due, so long as it's deserved, earned, legitimate and not gifted.

Your problem is you parse, slice and dice data to suit your arguments; you no doubt even convince yourself that because in your head, these half-baked justifications seem valid, they're not gonna be challenged as BS by many of the non partisan fans you try to shovel that **** to; Just doesn't work;

The only times you are funny is when it is unintentional. All yuo do is make excuses to take credit away from what the jets have done, you have no credibility.

The New Guy
06-19-2012, 04:51 PM
Nah, they didn't confuse Rivers then pressure him into that throw. It was all b/c Rivetrs just felt like throwing it to the opposing team.

Brad Smith averaged 31 yds per return in 2009, there was a much better chance he was going to have a 20+ yd return than another under 10 return.

Bal got to play Miami, if SD plays Miami they make the 2009 championship Game. Unfortunatetly for them they played a much better team.

SD had won playoff games 2 straight years, were in the title game in '07, div rd in '08. If Miami did that and lost in '09 w/ a 13-3 record I'd make fun of them but I don't think I'd make all the pathetic excuses you guys makes. Fortunately we don't have to worry about Miami ever going 13-3.:lol:


I really don't think the turnover was because of the Jets confusing or pressuring Rivers. It was such a bad pass I believe it was becasue Gates ran the wrong route or some other unforced error. I don't see anything in the clip that says otherwise.

Again, SD started on their own 31 when they scored that TD. The Jets O had gone 3 and out 4 times in the first half, so even with a good return, I doubt FP changes so drastically that SD doesn't score a TD.

What a team does in the past is not an indication of what they presently are. 09 SD was overrated and they proved that by losing to an average Jets team in their first playoff game. They have not made the playoffs (in a very weak division) since.

You can call them pathetic excuses, but they are really the facts.

SD was an overrated team that beat themselves in the playoffs with 3 missed FGs in a 3 point loss and a turnover that gave the Jets the ball on the SD 15 which led to the Jets first TD. While I am stating facts, I might as well add:

Catch, Elite, Safety. :lol:

nyjunc
06-19-2012, 05:02 PM
I really don't think the turnover was because of the Jets confusing or pressuring Rivers. It was such a bad pass I believe it was becasue Gates ran the wrong route or some other unforced error. I don't see anything in the clip that says otherwise.

Again, SD started on their own 31 when they scored that TD. The Jets O had gone 3 and out 4 times in the first half, so even with a good return, I doubt FP changes so drastically that SD doesn't score a TD.

What a team does in the past is not an indication of what they presently are. 09 SD was overrated and they proved that by losing to an average Jets team in their first playoff game. They have not made the playoffs (in a very weak division) since.

You can call them pathetic excuses, but they are really the facts.

SD was an overrated team that beat themselves in the playoffs with 3 missed FGs in a 3 point loss and a turnover that gave the Jets the ball on the SD 15 which led to the Jets first TD. While I am stating facts, I might as well add:

Catch, Elite, Safety. :lol:

we can play the what if game all day but the bottom line is the K missed the kics, the jets made plays to win and the better team won.

not a catch, not elite and was not a safety:chuckle:

Vaark
06-19-2012, 05:04 PM
The only times you are funny is when it is unintentional. All yuo do is make excuses to take credit away from what the jets have done, you have no credibility.

I'm the one with no credibility??? Speaking about amusing.. you yourself are too ****ing funny!

http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/10/282pdlk-1.jpg

nyjunc
06-20-2012, 10:51 AM
I'm the one with no credibility??? Speaking about amusing.. you yourself are too ****ing funny!



Absolutely, w/ all your excuses. You are the same guy that tiold me Sparano was a much better coacht han rex, how rex would never succeed b/c of previous Baltimore DCs and b/c his Dad never won a playoff game, you pumped up henne, you give Sherman credit for developing favre, the list goes on and on and on.


Eli isn't elite. led SB caliber team to 9 wins in bad division, threw 25 INts a year ago, has never had a singe elite regular season. The elite QBs do it every year not for 3 or 4 games in jan/feb.

I never said Sanchez was one of the league's top 7 QBs. I said I would only take 5-6 guys over him for my team.

Most playoff wins in AFC, tied for most in NFL, most title game apps- that's elite

Why would I trade our franchise QB for a crapshoot of another 1st rd pick? I actually said I wouldn't trade him for 2 1st rounders and I wouldn't.


Mark Sanchez in 3 seasons has 4 playoff wins
Philip RiversMatt Ryan and matt Schaub have COMBINED for 3(and one of them SD was losing and their backup led them to the GW RD) and those players have started for a combined 15 seasons. Schaub ahs never even played a postseason game.

I don't judge QBs based on fantasy stats like you.

Brian is a good OC, apparently he had a terrible QB and still helped us get to 3 postseasons and 2 title games.

The jets won the required amount of games to make the '09 postseason, of course they deserved it. other teams faded like Miami who lost to 3 non playoff bound teams to end the season, if they win those games they make it instead- if they just won 2 of those games they make it.

keep whining and making excuses.

JETSJETSJETS
06-20-2012, 11:05 AM
LOLOLOL. Did I really just read a jest fan compare Sparano to Bilichick. :lol:

Lol @ ur reading skills. Maybe thats what you read. But thats definitely not what was written.

SpurzN703
06-20-2012, 11:22 AM
Most playoff wins in AFC, tied for most in NFL, most title game apps- that's elite

Eli Manning has more Super Bowl MVPs than anyone in the Jets history. He also has more Super Bowl MVPs in the last dozen years than anyone in the NFL not Tom Brady. This isn't elite? :lol:


Eli isn't elite. led SB caliber team to 9 wins in bad division

The Jets won 9 games in 2009 in one of their glory years you repeat in every sentence in a division that had the Pats win 10 games, the Dolphins 7, and the Bills 6 (you knock the Dolphins and Bills every chance you get so this has to be considered a bad division too). Why are they considered elite then?

nyjunc
06-20-2012, 11:28 AM
Eli Manning has more Super Bowl MVPs than anyone in the Jets history. He also has more Super Bowl MVPs in the last dozen years than anyone in the NFL not Tom Brady. This isn't elite? :lol:



The Jets won 9 games in 2009 in one of their glory years you repeat in every sentence in a division that had the Pats win 10 games, the Dolphins 7, and the Bills 6 (you knock the Dolphins and Bills every chance you get so this has to be considered a bad division too). Why are they considered elite then?

He got those MVPs b/c he was the QB of the winning team, he really didn't deserve either one and it's one game. To be elite you have to play at a high level on a consistent basis while he has never had an elite full season.

It's aboutt he total body of work, the Jets won enough games to qualify for the playoffs, in the playoffs they won 2 road playoff games and led in the 2nd half of the title game. If you are one of the final 4 in your sport you are elite, the Jets were in that FF 2 of the last 3 years.

JETSJETSJETS
06-20-2012, 11:31 AM
So the game changes, but only to the Jets benefit?

No, but apparently Jets won and you're wrong.


SD missed the first easy field goal (37 yards) on their second possession of the game. No one scored until SD scored a TD in the second quarter. It would have been 10-0 SD. The Jets don't score until the 3rd making it 7-3 SD. Right at the end of the 3rd SD turns it over out of their own endzone. That gave the ball to the Jets on the SD 15 which led to the Jets first TD of the game. You don't think SD plays that series a little different if it is 10-3? Especially considering that the Jets only managed to score just 3 points in 3 quarters? Even if it played out the same, it would have been 10-10 had SD made the first field goal. The Jets next score is at the 7:17 mark in the 4th making the score 17-7 (17-10 with the field goal). On SD next possession they drive into field goal range, and what do you know, another missed field goal. It would have been 17-13 with the 2 easy FGs. The Jets tried to run out the clock, but could not.

You act as if kickers have never missed a kick.


SD gets the ball back and scores what could have been the game winner. Let me guess, SD never would have scored that TD because the Jets wouldn't have gone into prevent. Isn't a prevent defense supposed to stop big plays? Why was SD able to gain 11 yards, 37 yards, and 19 yards in their first 3 plays of that last series?

7 plays, 63 yards. I would think thats reasonable in a prevent D.


That scenario doesn't even include the 57 yard miss. You can call that 57 yard attempt a prayer, but he has made a 57 yard FG before and kicked a 54 yard FG with plenty of room to spare just a couple of weeks before the playoffs. Had he made those FGs, I think it is safer to say the outcome changes than saying the Jets still win regardless.

If he made a 57 yarder once in his life, it doesn't mean he'll make it every time. Including that 50+ yarder, and the next four 50+ yarders, he is 1/5.

You can talk about all the misses from SD and MAYBE convince someone else that the outcome would be different, but the fact is, SD had to have a lot of things work in their favor for the victory. Ever wonder how Patriots ended up with those two out of three SBs? Its cuz Vinatieri made two game winning FGs of 41 and 48 yards while the game was on the line. Folk hit a game winning FG against Indy in 2010. Nate Kaeding didn't.

JETSJETSJETS
06-20-2012, 11:42 AM
You credit the Jets D for everything. Rivers threw it right to Leonard. It doesn't look like the Jets did anything to force that turnover. Just becasue the Jets had a good return to their 40 doesn't mean they would have had another good return, anymore than when they had the bad return to their 9 means they would have another bad return. SD started on their own 31 when they scored that first TD, so I don't see how FP would have changed so drastically from a made FG that SD wouldn't have been able to score. I think that is a bit of a reach.

Whats a reach is you assuming that Nate Kaeding should have made all those FGs including the 57 yard prayer, just because he once made it back a few years ago, but totally discrediting the Jets return game by the highlighted sentence.


NE made the Super Bowl, and Bal made it to the AFCC game. That is a little different than losing your first playoff game to a 9-7* Jets team. The 2 division champs and 3 playoff bound teams that SD beat were Dal, Phi, and Cincy. 3 weak playoff teams.

News flash: 10-6, 11-5 and 11-5 are records of three weak playoff teams.

SpurzN703
06-20-2012, 01:35 PM
He got those MVPs b/c he was the QB of the winning team, he really didn't deserve either one and it's one game.

This another fact of yours?

---------- Post added at 01:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 PM ----------


It's aboutt he total body of work, the Jets won enough games to qualify for the playoffs, in the playoffs they won 2 road playoff games and led in the 2nd half of the title game. If you are one of the final 4 in your sport you are elite, the Jets were in that FF 2 of the last 3 years.

Okay. You do realize the Giants won two road playoff games too, including the NFC Title Game which the Jets haven't done, and then won it all.

Now what?

nyjunc
06-20-2012, 02:19 PM
This another fact of yours?

---------- Post added at 01:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 PM ----------



Okay. You do realize the Giants won two road playoff games too, including the NFC Title Game which the Jets haven't done, and then won it all.

Now what?

Not a fact, just an educated opinion. He deserved it more in this SB but still didn't deserve it. Tuck deserved it for this past one, Tyree for the first one or any # of defneders in the first one. How a defensive player didn't win it considering they held one oft he greateswt O's ever to 14 points I have no idea.

But I said the Giants are elite and the giants 2nd rd game was the title game b/c they play in a division where 9 wins gets you a div title and a home WC game.

The New Guy
06-20-2012, 02:22 PM
No, but apparently Jets won and you're wrong.

Who said the Jets didn't win? We are talking about what we think would have happened had SD made the FGs. You said SD still goes down 17 - 13 even if Keading makes the 2 easy FGs, but you pretty much bet that the Jets don't go into prevent and SD doesn't score a TD. Seems to me that in your mind the game changes, but only to the Jets benefit. I pointed out several things that likely would have changed in SDs favor as well.




You act as if kickers have never missed a kick.

I haven't seen a kicker choke in the playoffs like Keading has in a while. It happens and it is part of the game, but don't act like those missed FGs didn't play a huge part in the Jets win.




7 plays, 63 yards. I would think thats reasonable in a prevent D.

SD got a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and a 5 yard false start penalty, so they actually went 83 yards in 8 plays. 1 play was a 3 yard scramble by Rivers, 1 was an incomplete pass and 1 was a 1 yard run for the TD. If you take those 3 plays away, they went 79 yards in 5 plays. Regardless, 83 yards in 8 plays that took 1:23 and resulted in a TD. Yes, very reasonable for a prevent D. :lol:



If he made a 57 yarder once in his life, it doesn't mean he'll make it every time. Including that 50+ yarder, and the next four 50+ yarders, he is 1/5.

Who cares what his FG percentage is after those missed kicks? What he had done before is much more relevant when looking at how reasonable the attempt was. Before that attempt, he was 3 for 3 on 50+ yard kicks in 2009 including a 54 yarder just a couple weeks before that had plenty of room to spare. Prior to that miss, he had made 75% of his 50+ yard attempts in his career.




You can talk about all the misses from SD and MAYBE convince someone else that the outcome would be different, but the fact is, SD had to have a lot of things work in their favor for the victory. Ever wonder how Patriots ended up with those two out of three SBs? Its cuz Vinatieri made two game winning FGs of 41 and 48 yards while the game was on the line. Folk hit a game winning FG against Indy in 2010. Nate Kaeding didn't.

I know there is no convincing a Jets homer of anything, but I'm just pointing out the obvious. Most unbiased people see the same things. Hitting game winning FGs is different than the other team missing FGs. The situations are different, but what if NE missed those FGs and went on to lose? Wouldn't you say that those missed FGs played a huge role in the other team winning?




Whats a reach is you assuming that Nate Kaeding should have made all those FGs including the 57 yard prayer, just because he once made it back a few years ago, but totally discrediting the Jets return game by the highlighted sentence.

I never said the 57 yarder was a gimme, and I didn't even include it in my main scenario. I simply pointed out that he was capable of making the kick and it wasn't an unreasonable attempt. The Jets return game returned 2 kicks in that game. One was to their own 16 and the other was to their own 40. My point was that it didn't matter if the Jets returned it to the 40 again or not. The Jets O had gone 3 and out 4 times in the first half. Even if the Jets had another good return, I doubt the FP was going to change so drastically that SD wouldn't have been able to score their first TD.



News flash: 10-6, 11-5 and 11-5 are records of three weak playoff teams.

Yes, Dallas, Philly and Cincinnati were such strong playoffs teams. If Dal and Phi hadn't played each other in the first round they all would have been 1 and done in the playoffs.

JETSJETSJETS
06-20-2012, 03:31 PM
Who said the Jets didn't win? We are talking about what we think would have happened had SD made the FGs. You said SD still goes down 17 - 13 even if Keading makes the 2 easy FGs, but you pretty much bet that the Jets don't go into prevent and SD doesn't score a TD. Seems to me that in your mind the game changes, but only to the Jets benefit. I pointed out several things that likely would have changed in SDs favor as well.

Exactly. You pointed several things that favored the Chargers alone. Jets were the better team that night and the scorebaord proved it.



I haven't seen a kicker choke in the playoffs like Keading has in a while. It happens and it is part of the game, but don't act like those missed FGs didn't play a huge part in the Jets win.

Interestingly, Nate Kaeding missed a 40 yarder in 2004 playoffs against Jets in OT. Doug Brien kicked a 42 yarder in OT to win. Doug Brien then went on to miss two chip shots in the Divisonal game against Pitsburgh, both which would have given the game to the Jets. Point is, from the worst to the best kickers, they all miss.


SD got a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and a 5 yard false start penalty, so they actually went 83 yards in 8 plays. 1 play was a 3 yard scramble by Rivers, 1 was an incomplete pass and 1 was a 1 yard run for the TD. If you take those 3 plays away, they went 79 yards in 5 plays. Regardless, 83 yards in 8 plays that took 1:23 and resulted in a TD. Yes, very reasonable for a prevent D. :lol:

Just when u think ur posts couldn't get any lamer, you prove everybody wrong. Taking out 3 plays from a 7 play series is foolish to say the least for any argument sakes. Then to add back the penalty yards in to the drive to prove a point is even worse. Take away three SB rings from Brady and we can call Dan Marino v2.0 with all records but no ring to show for. See how foolish things can get u start taking out good plays/games/years from a team?


Who cares what his FG percentage is after those missed kicks? What he had done before is much more relevant when looking at how reasonable the attempt was. Before that attempt, he was 3 for 3 on 50+ yard kicks in 2009 including a 54 yarder just a couple weeks before that had plenty of room to spare. Prior to that miss, he had made 75% of his 50+ yard attempts in his career.

Again, it wasn't the first time he choked in playoffs. See my reply above.


I know there is no convincing a Jets homer of anything, but I'm just pointing out the obvious. Most unbiased people see the same things. Hitting game winning FGs is different than the other team missing FGs. The situations are different, but what is NE missed those FGs and went on to lose? Wouldn't you say that those missed FGs played a huge role in the other team winning?

Adam made those kicks, but Brady gets the credit for reaching in his kicking range. You love playing the "what if" game, but blame me for assuming things remain the same after 'assuming' a missed kick is converted?



I never said the 57 yarder was a gimme, and I didn't even include it in my main scenario. I simply pointed out that he was capable of making the kick and it wasn't an unreasonable attempt. The Jets return game returned 2 kicks in that game. One was to their own 16 and the other was to their own 40. My point was that it didn't matter if the Jets returned it to the 40 again or not. The Jets O had gone 3 and out 4 times in the first half. Even if the Jets had another good return, I doubt the FP was going to change so drastically that SD wouldn't have been able to score their first TD.

So Jets offense went 3 and out 4 times in the game(or half), it means Jets offense will always go 3 and out...? Thats what you are basing ur opinion on. Then you accuse me of only giving the benefit to the Jets.


Yes, Dallas, Philly and Cincinnati were such strong playoffs teams. If Dal and Phi hadn't played in other in the first round they all would have been 1 and done in the playoffs.

Again, only you would claim 10-6, 11-5 and 11-5 teams are weak playoff teams.

SpurzN703
06-20-2012, 04:01 PM
Not a fact, just an educated opinion. He deserved it more in this SB but still didn't deserve it. Tuck deserved it for this past one, Tyree for the first one or any # of defneders in the first one. How a defensive player didn't win it considering they held one oft he greateswt O's ever to 14 points I have no idea.

Ah, I thought you only dealt with facts.


But I said the Giants are elite and the giants 2nd rd game was the title game b/c they play in a division where 9 wins gets you a div title and a home WC game.

How can the Giants be elite when their same QB who has been with them these last 5 years has won two SB MVPs? I know you think the NFL is biased toward the Manning family but that is pure speculation on your part.

nyjunc
06-20-2012, 04:16 PM
Ah, I thought you only dealt with facts.



How can the Giants be elite when their same QB who has been with them these last 5 years has won two SB MVPs? I know you think the NFL is biased toward the Manning family but that is pure speculation on your part.

You don't understand the difference btw team vs. individual? How can a player be elite w/o a single all pro selection? Not even a 2nd team AP.

The league is biased towards the Mannings and QBs. Peyton didn't deserve his SB MVP either, he did very little in that game.

The New Guy
06-20-2012, 05:02 PM
Exactly. You pointed several things that favored the Chargers alone. Jets were the better team that night and the scorebaord proved it.

Again, we are talking about what we think would have happened had SD made those FGs. SD making 3 FGS is not going to benefit the Jets. It is only going to benefit the chargers. You want to say the game changes, but you only change it to benefit the Jets with bogus excuses.




Interestingly, Nate Kaeding missed a 40 yarder in 2004 playoffs against Jets in OT. Doug Brien kicked a 42 yarder in OT to win. Doug Brien then went on to miss two chip shots in the Divisonal game against Pitsburgh, both which would have given the game to the Jets. Point is, from the worst to the best kickers, they all miss.

Who said kickers never miss? Was Doug Brien's missed FGs against Pitt a big reason why the Jets lost or not? The answer is yes. If I was a Pitt fan with your line of thinking, I would be making up all kinds of excuses as to how the game changes and why Pitt still wins that game. It's ridiculous.




Just when u think ur posts couldn't get any lamer, you prove everybody wrong. Taking out 3 plays from a 7 play series is foolish to say the least for any argument sakes. Then to add back the penalty yards in to the drive to prove a point is even worse. Take away three SB rings from Brady and we can call Dan Marino v2.0 with all records but no ring to show for. See how foolish things can get u start taking out good plays/games/years from a team?

You are the one that said it was reasonable for the Jets to allow a 7 play, 63 yard TD drive in 1:22 when they were supposed to be in prevent D. And you are calling my post lame. :lol: I only mentioned the 3 short plays (1 yard TD run, 3 yard scramble by Rivers, and the incomplete pass) since those are 3 plays that resulted in only 4 yards. The majority of the Chargers plays on that drive were big plays. Isn't prevent supposed to prevent big plays? Why wouldn't I add in the penalty yards? SD backed themselves up 20 yards in stupid penalties and had to regain that 20 yards. The reality is that they gained 83 yards in 7 plays and scored a TD in 1:22. If the Jets were playing prevent, they failed miserably.




Again, it wasn't the first time he choked in playoffs. See my reply above.

The guy obviously has choked in the playoffs, and has been the main reason other teams have beaten the Chargers. Is it reasonable to assume that he will choke the rest of his career? Was SD wrong to think that a guy who had kicked so well the whole season could make 36, and 40 yard FGs? It doesn't really matter. The whole point is missing those FGs played a huge role in the Jets win.




Adam made those kicks, but Brady gets the credit for reaching in his kicking range. You love playing the "what if" game, but blame me for assuming things remain the same after 'assuming' a missed kick is converted?

No, I blame you for only saying the game changes in the Jets favor. I don't buy the prevent excuse, but lets say the game does change at that moment and the Jets prevent SD from scoring that last TD. You have to consider how the game changes for SD as well. Had SD made those FGs, it is safe to say that they play the series out of their own endzone more conservatively up 7 or 10 points than they do up only 4. They probably don't turn the ball over and give the Jets the ball on their own 15 which led to the Jets first TD of the game. Even if you apply both changes to the game, SD still wins. I don't know why it is so hard for Jets fans to admit that 3 missed FGs (2 easy FGs) in a 3 point loss played a huge role in the win.




So Jets offense went 3 and out 4 times in the game(or half), it means Jets offense will always go 3 and out...? Thats what you are basing ur opinion on. Then you accuse me of only giving the benefit to the Jets.

They went 3 and out 4 times in the first half alone. I never said they would always go 3 and out. I'm going by what actually happened in the game. Give me a logical reason why the Jets would have been able to get a first down if SD made those FGs when they failed to do so on the two missed FG attempts which gave them the ball on their 26 and 30. They went 3 and out both times after those missed FGs. SD scored their first TD starting on their 31. So, please give me 1 good reason of how SD making a FG allows the Jets to change the FP so drastically that SD doesn't score their first TD. It is just another excuse that makes no sense.





Again, only you would claim 10-6, 11-5 and 11-5 teams are weak playoff teams.

Ask around. I'm sure I am not the only one who thinks 09 Cincy, Dal and Philly were weak playoff teams. Again, If Dal and Phi hadn't played in other in the first round they all would have been 1 and done in the playoffs.

SpurzN703
06-20-2012, 05:19 PM
You don't understand the difference btw team vs. individual? How can a player be elite w/o a single all pro selection? Not even a 2nd team AP.

I guess I don't understand. I'm a child when it comes to understanding things. Who said being elite meant you had to have an all-pro selection? You of course. You'll find every award or honor Eli Manning hasn't received
and make it seem like you need those things to be elite.

What makes teams elite? Winning right? He's won it all twice.


The league is biased towards the Mannings and QBs. Peyton didn't deserve his SB MVP either, he did very little in that game.

No reason to discuss this. It is what it is.

nyjunc
06-20-2012, 05:29 PM
I guess I don't understand. I'm a child when it comes to understanding things. Who said being elite meant you had to have an all-pro selection? You of course. You'll find every award or honor Eli Manning hasn't received
and make it seem like you need those things to be elite.

What makes teams elite? Winning right? He's won it all twice.



No reason to discuss this. It is what it is.

If you are elite you are one of the best, AP selections tell us players are among the best at their position. It's not like he's been in the league 3-4 years, he's been in 8 years and has yet to have a single elite full season. He played like an elite QB last Jan/Feb but you need to bring that level of play consistently not for a few games here and there.

Ok so Dan marino was never elite according to your logic. If you can tell me Dan wasn't elite I'll call Eli elite.

JETSJETSJETS
06-20-2012, 05:32 PM
Again, we are talking about what we think would have happened had SD made those FGs. SD making 3 FGS is not going to benefit the Jets. It is only going to benefit the chargers. You want to say the game changes, but you only change it to benefit the Jets with bogus excuses. .

See why I say you are only trying to look for things that would benefit the Chargers alone? You are talking about giving Chargers not one, not two, but three scoring opportunities in return to nothing for the Jets and then MAYBE they win, whereas I said even if they score on two of the three, Jets don't play prevent D and actually stop the Chargers, who's high flying offense only managed one TD the entire game prior to the prevent D. I'll tell u how its prevent D below.

On a side not, if Chargers make any of those FGs, the entire game changes. Maybe the outcome becomes 30-27 Chargers, maybe neither team scores another point...You have a moot point.


Who said kickers never miss? Was Doug Brien's missed FGs against Pitt a big reason why the Jets lost or not? The answer is yes. If I was a Pitt fan with your line of thinking, I would be making up all kinds of excuses as to how the game changes and why Pitt still wins that game. It's ridiculous.

Yes, Doug Brien's missed FG was the reason why Jets lost, cuz u know why? One of the chipshot came in OT, while the other came with about a minute to go. So at least one of them would have meant a W.


You are the one that said it was reasonable for the Jets to allow a 7 play, 63 yard TD drive in 1:22 when they were supposed to be in prevent D. And you are calling my post lame. :lol: I only mentioned the 3 short plays (1 yard TD run, 3 yard scramble by Rivers, and the incomplete pass) since those are 3 plays that resulted in only 4 yards. The majority of the Chargers plays on that drive were big plays. Isn't prevent supposed to prevent big plays? Why wouldn't I add in the penalty yards? SD backed themselves up 20 yards in stupid penalties and had to regain that 20 yards. The reality is that they gained 83 yards in 7 plays and scored a TD in 1:22. If the Jets were playing prevent, they failed miserably.

7 plays, 63 yards. Did u not see that the Jets corner was giving almost a 10 yard cushion to the WR? Does it not mean that Jets were fine if they gave up 10 yards at a time? The 30+ yarder was a good pass. The 19 yarder was a little dump off that resulted in 19 yards dues the safeties being deep. Maybe now you understand what prevent D means? Do the math for me, does 63 yards on 7 plays seem right for a 10 yard cushion D with deep safeties?



The guy obviously has choked in the playoffs, and has been the main reason other teams have beaten the Chargers. Is it reasonable to assume that he will choke the rest of his career? Was SD wrong to think that a guy who had kicked so well the whole season could make 36, and 40 yard FGs? It doesn't really matter. The whole point is missing those FGs played a huge role in the Jets win.

And I guess the Jets D sucked the entire game. Thanks.


No, I blame you for only saying the game changes in the Jets favor. I don't buy the prevent excuse, but lets say the game does change at that moment and the Jets prevent SD from scoring that last TD. You have to consider how the game changes for SD as well. Had SD made those FGs, it is safe to say that they play the series out of their own endzone more conservatively up 7 or 10 points than they do up only 4. They probably don't turn the ball over and give the Jets the ball on their own 15 which led to the Jets first TD of the game. Even if you apply both changes to the game, SD still wins. I don't know why it is so hard for Jets fans to admit that 3 missed FGs (2 easy FGs) in a 3 point loss played a huge role in the win.

LOLOLOLOL I said the game changes only in Jets favor if Chargers make those FGs? That what you think I said. Chargers making those FGs also benefits the Jets? Conversion of the FGs itself is giving Chargers the benefit...is it not? Just so u know, being up 4 or 7 means they are up by nothing less than a TD. And no, it doesn't change their play calling. Being up 3 or up 7 is a whole new set of arguments.




They went 3 and out 4 times in the first half alone. I never said they would always go 3 and out. I'm going by what actually happened in the game. Give me a logical reason why the Jets would have been able to get a first down if SD made those FGs when they failed to do so on the two missed FG attempts which gave them the ball on their 26 and 30. They went 3 and out both times after those missed FGs. SD scored their first TD starting on their 31. So, please give me 1 good reason of how SD making a FG allows the Jets to change the FP so drastically that SD doesn't score their first TD. It is just another excuse that makes no sense.

Well they couldn't stop Greene when they needed to the most. FYI, Chargers first TD came off a miscommunication, and their second TD came against a prevent D. Yeah, lets crown them with great offensive momentum!


Ask around. I'm sure I am not the only one who thinks 09 Cincy, Dal and Philly were weak playoff teams. Again, If Dal and Phi hadn't played in other in the first round they all would have been 1 and done in the playoffs

Again, playoff teams with 10-11 wins are not weak. I don't need to ask anyone.

Vaark
06-20-2012, 05:38 PM
LMAO.

Junc is big on "what might have happened's" like if Cruz didn't catch that pass from Eli in the second quarter, the momentum would have shifted, the Giants wouldn't have thumped the jest and it would have been the green beavers not the Giants heading into the playoffs. And of course, you don't know QB'ing if you think that Sanchez stunk up the SD game if you're not counting a successful hand-off to Shon Greene for a 53 yd TD run, but Tony Romo's brainfart throwing the ball directly to Revis with less than a minute to go in game 1 had no bearing on the jest going 8-8 instead of a more deserved 7-9. And then of course, you have the Colts starters, having dominated in 14 straight games in 09 and a few games later actually outscoring the jets 24-0 in the final 31 minutes of their conference loss - despite leaving up 15-10 and outscoring the jest 45-27 in those 2 games, probably not winning game 15 despite the fact that Curtis Painter had a 4QBR and the jets hadn't beaten a single winning team that season after squeaking by a shaky Brady in game 2.

SpurzN703
06-20-2012, 07:27 PM
If you are elite you are one of the best, AP selections tell us players are among the best at their position. It's not like he's been in the league 3-4 years, he's been in 8 years and has yet to have a single elite full season. He played like an elite QB last Jan/Feb but you need to bring that level of play consistently not for a few games here and there.

Ok so Dan marino was never elite according to your logic. If you can tell me Dan wasn't elite I'll call Eli elite.

So now Eli Manning and Dan Marino can be compared? How? You always make it seem like there's only one very specific reason someone is elite.

Marino had 8 All-Pro selections and 1 SB appearance. He's elite b/c he's one of the best statistical QBs to ever play. You can't say the same for everyone. I said the Bills were elite despite not winning any of their four straight SBs. You can't say that for any other team.

It isn't as clear cut as you're trying to make it to fit your quota.

Jetsfan0099
06-20-2012, 09:21 PM
This is a hilarious thread, Rex has be as motivated as ever. Players have said how much more hands on hes been this offseason, hes back to controlling the defense and has made it his mission to make sure this team is together. How can someone come out and say that he looks depleted?

The New Guy
06-20-2012, 11:00 PM
See why I say you are only trying to look for things that would benefit the Chargers alone? You are talking about giving Chargers not one, not two, but three scoring opportunities in return to nothing for the Jets and then MAYBE they win, whereas I said even if they score on two of the three, Jets don't play prevent D and actually stop the Chargers, who's high flying offense only managed one TD the entire game prior to the prevent D. I'll tell u how its prevent D below.

On a side not, if Chargers make any of those FGs, the entire game changes. Maybe the outcome becomes 30-27 Chargers, maybe neither team scores another point...You have a moot point.

I already told you that I didn't even count the 57 yard attempt in my scenario. Those 3 misses actually happened. How in the world does it benefit the Jets if SD makes those FGs? You want to assume that the only thing that changes in the game is the Jets not going into prevent (which is a nothing but an excuse for the Jets D), and you assume the Jets stop the Chargers from scoring. That is not the only logical thing that changes. We can have a good idea of how things would have changed based on what actually happened. A couple of made FGs isn't going to change a 17 to 14 game into a 30 to 27 game. That makes no sense. Made FGs by SD are not going to help the Jets get a first down on any of their (4) 3 and out drives in the first half. To think otherwise is crazy.




Yes, Doug Brien's missed FG was the reason why Jets lost, cuz u know why? One of the chipshot came in OT, while the other came with about a minute to go. So at least one of them would have meant a W.

Nope, the game changes completely if Brien hits that FG. If Brien made the FG with a minute left, Pitt would have returned the ensuing kickoff for a TD and the game never would have gone to OT. See how ridiculous that is?




7 plays, 63 yards. Did u not see that the Jets corner was giving almost a 10 yard cushion to the WR? Does it not mean that Jets were fine if they gave up 10 yards at a time? The 30+ yarder was a good pass. The 19 yarder was a little dump off that resulted in 19 yards dues the safeties being deep. Maybe now you understand what prevent D means? Do the math for me, does 63 yards on 7 plays seem right for a 10 yard cushion D with deep safeties?

The Jets corner was playing 10 yards off the WR a lot throughout the whole game. That doesn't mean they were in prevent, or that they were ok with giving up 10 yards at a time. Just because they went 63 yards in 7 plays does not mean that they allowed around 10 yards a play. The Chargers actually gained 83 yards on 7 plays and gained a huge chunk of it on just 3 plays. The idea of a prevent is to prevent big plays and make the O take as much time off the clock as possible. The Jets failed on both accounts if they were in prevent. They were not. The Jets were not even in a soft zone on that last drive. They were rushing 5 guys and the other corners were right on the receivers. Very similar to how they were playing D in the first half. Take a look:

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

They actually played further off the receivers in the first half than they did when you say they were in prevent. :lol:



And I guess the Jets D sucked the entire game. Thanks.

The Jets D played great, but they got help with a couple of turnovers and missed FGs.




LOLOLOLOL I said the game changes only in Jets favor if Chargers make those FGs? That what you think I said. Chargers making those FGs also benefits the Jets? Conversion of the FGs itself is giving Chargers the benefit...is it not? Just so u know, being up 4 or 7 means they are up by nothing less than a TD. And no, it doesn't change their play calling. Being up 3 or up 7 is a whole new set of arguments.

We are talking about how the game changes if SD makes the FGs. That is what this whole debate has been about. SD missing those FGs played a huge role in the Jets win. You disagree by telling me how the game changes if they had made those FGs, but only apply changes to the game that benefit the Jets. You can't include made FGs as a game changing benefit to SD when we are talking about how the game changes based on making those FGs. That is what the whole debate is about. How the game changes if SD makes the FGs. You only consider how the game changes for the Jets benefit when you say SD still goes down 17 to 13 and that the Jets don't go into prevent and stop SD from scoring. You don't consider how it changes things for the Chargers benefit as well.

Being up 7 instead of 4 is a huge difference. Being up 4 means you can get beat by a TD. Being up 7 means they can only tie. Being up 10 means it is a 2 possession game. It is a huge difference.






Well they couldn't stop Greene when they needed to the most. FYI, Chargers first TD came off a miscommunication, and their second TD came against a prevent D. Yeah, lets crown them with great offensive momentum!

And the Jets first TD came off a turnover which gave the Jets the ball on the SD 15 and the second came on a missed tackle. Who cares? They wouldn't have needed to stop Green had they made the FGs.



Again, playoff teams with 10-11 wins are not weak. I don't need to ask anyone.


Then you must think the 08 Dolphins were a strong playoff team. :up:

SpurzN703
06-21-2012, 10:39 AM
This is a hilarious thread, Rex has be as motivated as ever. Players have said how much more hands on hes been this offseason, hes back to controlling the defense and has made it his mission to make sure this team is together. How can someone come out and say that he looks depleted?

In the photo provided in the original post, I think he looks a lot better. Whoever is arguing he looks bad doesn't really know what they're saying IMO.

JETSJETSJETS
06-21-2012, 11:01 AM
I already told you that I didn't even count the 57 yard attempt in my scenario. Those 3 misses actually happened. How in the world does it benefit the Jets if SD makes those FGs? You want to assume that the only thing that changes in the game is the Jets not going into prevent (which is a nothing but an excuse for the Jets D), and you assume the Jets stop the Chargers from scoring. That is not the only logical thing that changes. We can have a good idea of how things would have changed based on what actually happened. A couple of made FGs isn't going to change a 17 to 14 game into a 30 to 27 game. That makes no sense. Made FGs by SD are not going to help the Jets get a first down on any of their (4) 3 and out drives in the first half. To think otherwise is crazy.

Again, you fail to understand a very simple point I made. Its ok, once u turn 12, you'll start understanding better, but I'll try again. U accused me of giving all the benefit to the Jets if Chargers make both of those FGs, when u fail to realize that assuming Chargers convert those FGs is a direct benefit to the Chargers while ALL ur predictions are directly against the Jets. And a couple of made FGs changes the entire game so a 30-27 game is as likely as a 17-14 game, but dont stress it. Its useless to discuss this.


Nope, the game changes completely if Brien hits that FG. If Brien made the FG with a minute left, Pitt would have returned the ensuing kickoff for a TD and the game never would have gone to OT. See how ridiculous that is?

Wow...another brainless comment. A made FG in OT would not have ended the game? That's why I said "at least one of those FGs". And for your kind information, Steelers tried their best to get in to FG range after the first missed FG with 1 minute to go in regulation...and they failed. That's something we do know and you can't argue about it...but knowing you, you'll make another crazy argument.




The Jets corner was playing 10 yards off the WR a lot throughout the whole game. That doesn't mean they were in prevent, or that they were ok with giving up 10 yards at a time. Just because they went 63 yards in 7 plays does not mean that they allowed around 10 yards a play. The Chargers actually gained 83 yards on 7 plays and gained a huge chunk of it on just 3 plays. The idea of a prevent is to prevent big plays and make the O take as much time off the clock as possible. The Jets failed on both accounts if they were in prevent. They were not. The Jets were not even in a soft zone on that last drive. They were rushing 5 guys and the other corners were right on the receivers. Very similar to how they were playing D in the first half. Take a look:

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif


http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

They actually played further off the receivers in the first half than they did when you say they were in prevent. :lol:


Congratulations! You have great copy pasting skills. Did u stop to even think the second play might just be zone coverage? Or just an invitation to try to pass to the outside WR while the inside corner tries to jump the route? I don't know what happened on that play and neither am I interested, but such packages are found all over the game. That doesn't mean a prevent D is not a prevent D.


The Jets D played great, but they got help with a couple of turnovers and missed FGs.

LMAO...they got help with a couple of turnovers and missed FGs. Care to explain how they got help on the turnovers? And care to explain how Chargers were forced to kick those FGs in the first place? Again, two TDs by Chargers. One off a miscommunication, and one against a prevent D.


We are talking about how the game changes if SD makes the FGs. That is what this whole debate has been about. SD missing those FGs played a huge role in the Jets win. You disagree by telling me how the game changes if they had made those FGs, but only apply changes to the game that benefit the Jets. You can't include made FGs as a game changing benefit to SD when we are talking about how the game changes based on making those FGs. That is what the whole debate is about. How the game changes if SD makes the FGs. You only consider how the game changes for the Jets benefit when you say SD still goes down 17 to 13 and that the Jets don't go into prevent and stop SD from scoring. You don't consider how it changes things for the Chargers benefit as well.

You bring up the point that SD should have made those FGs and then continue to scramble for excuses why SD would win. I say Jets win even if they score because the benefit needs to be given to BOTH teams. SD get the benefit (for discussion's sake) by converted FGs, Jets get benefit of not playing prevent D. I say SD doesn't score the TD based on how that team played throughout the earlier 57 minutes (1 TD off miscommunication).


And the Jets first TD came off a turnover which gave the Jets the ball on the SD 15 and the second came on a missed tackle. Who cares? They wouldn't have needed to stop Green had they made the FGs.


Again, they couldn't stop Greene when they needed it the most. Which means that we KNOW SD couldn't make an important stop at clutch moment. Don't dismiss that with another one of ur bs excuses.


Then you must think the 08 Dolphins were a strong playoff team. :up:


Now you are talking about ONE team, not three playoff teams from the same year...
Cincy beat the Ravens and Steelers twice each, the main reason why one of them missed the playoffs and the other team missed division title.
Eagles and Cowboys shared an 11-5 record while they faced each other twice AND faced the SB champs from the previous year, Giants twice. Again, we are not talking about one team here...we are talking about three teams.

nyjunc
06-21-2012, 11:26 AM
LMAO.

Junc is big on "what might have happened's" like if Cruz didn't catch that pass from Eli in the second quarter, the momentum would have shifted, the Giants wouldn't have thumped the jest and it would have been the green beavers not the Giants heading into the playoffs. And of course, you don't know QB'ing if you think that Sanchez stunk up the SD game if you're not counting a successful hand-off to Shon Greene for a 53 yd TD run, but Tony Romo's brainfart throwing the ball directly to Revis with less than a minute to go in game 1 had no bearing on the jest going 8-8 instead of a more deserved 7-9. And then of course, you have the Colts starters, having dominated in 14 straight games in 09 and a few games later actually outscoring the jets 24-0 in the final 31 minutes of their conference loss - despite leaving up 15-10 and outscoring the jest 45-27 in those 2 games, probably not winning game 15 despite the fact that Curtis Painter had a 4QBR and the jets hadn't beaten a single winning team that season after squeaking by a shaky Brady in game 2.

They thumped us so bad that twice we had the ball in the 4th down 6 including on the NYG side of the field.:rolleyes2:


So now Eli Manning and Dan Marino can be compared? How? You always make it seem like there's only one very specific reason someone is elite.

Marino had 8 All-Pro selections and 1 SB appearance. He's elite b/c he's one of the best statistical QBs to ever play. You can't say the same for everyone. I said the Bills were elite despite not winning any of their four straight SBs. You can't say that for any other team.

It isn't as clear cut as you're trying to make it to fit your quota.

YOU said Eli is elite b/c he won SBs, Dan didn't so I guess Dan isn't elite and Eli, Dilfer, Plunkett, etc... were/are all elite? Jake Ballard must be elite too along w/ Jacobs, Bradshaw, etc...

SpurzN703
06-21-2012, 11:46 AM
They thumped us so bad that twice we had the ball in the 4th down 6 including on the NYG side of the field.:rolleyes2:

YOU said Eli is elite b/c he won SBs, Dan didn't so I guess Dan isn't elite

Speaking of YOU, YOU don't ****ing read what I say. YOU quoted ME when I said Dan was elite b/c he was one of the best statistical QBs to ever play.


Eli, Dilfer, Plunkett, etc... were/are all elite? Jake Ballard must be elite too along w/ Jacobs, Bradshaw, etc...

Did Dilfer, Plunkett, Ballard, Jacobs, Bradshaw, etc win two Super Bowl MVPs? I've said Manning is now elite b/c of his TWO SUPER BOWL MVPs. You accuse everyone of lying, not paying attention, deflecting....yet you're the one who ignores what gets thrown right back in your face.

nyjunc
06-21-2012, 12:01 PM
Speaking of YOU, YOU don't ****ing read what I say. YOU quoted ME when I said Dan was elite b/c he was one of the best statistical QBs to ever play.



Did Dilfer, Plunkett, Ballard, Jacobs, Bradshaw, etc win two Super Bowl MVPs? I've said Manning is now elite b/c of his TWO SUPER BOWL MVPs. You accuse everyone of lying, not paying attention, deflecting....yet you're the one who ignores what gets thrown right back in your face.

so b/c he won 2 SB MVPs that he probably didn't deserve that makes him elite. He doesn't need to do another thing, he can never have an elite full season, he can throw 25 INTs a year ago, he can not win a playoff game in 6 of 8 seasons, throw for under 60% in half of his seasons, lead the league in INTs twice, never make a single AP team but he's elite b/c a ball stuck to a helmet.

SpurzN703
06-21-2012, 02:16 PM
so b/c he won 2 SB MVPs that he probably didn't deserve that makes him elite. He doesn't need to do another thing, he can never have an elite full season, he can throw 25 INTs a year ago, he can not win a playoff game in 6 of 8 seasons, throw for under 60% in half of his seasons, lead the league in INTs twice, never make a single AP team but he's elite b/c a ball stuck to a helmet.

I can only speak for myself and seeing that I say he's now elite, he's elite. To me. In my world. Repeat your boring stats all you want, the guy has more rings than your franchise's history. It must stiiiiiing.

---------- Post added at 02:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 PM ----------


so b/c he won 2 SB MVPs that he probably didn't deserve that makes him elite. He doesn't need to do another thing, he can never have an elite full season, he can throw 25 INTs a year ago, he can not win a playoff game in 6 of 8 seasons, throw for under 60% in half of his seasons, lead the league in INTs twice, never make a single AP team but he's elite b/c a ball stuck to a helmet.

Awesome job not commenting on me throwing your bull**** about Dilfer, Plunkett, and crew back at you. You're swell at deflecting.

nyjunc
06-21-2012, 02:33 PM
I can only speak for myself and seeing that I say he's now elite, he's elite. To me. In my world. Repeat your boring stats all you want, the guy has more rings than your franchise's history. It must stiiiiiing.

---------- Post added at 02:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 PM ----------



Awesome job not commenting on me throwing your bull**** about Dilfer, Plunkett, and crew back at you. You're swell at deflecting.

Yes it stings, so much that I often think of taking my life but I think "how would finheaven go on w/o me" so I don't do it.

I have swatted away your nonsense for years including in this discussion. All he ahs are 2 SB MVPs which again can be debated whether he deserved them or not. How is a QB elite when he doesn't have a single elite level full season? again, it's great a ball stcuk to a helmet but that doesn't make someone elite.

SpurzN703
06-21-2012, 07:31 PM
Yes it stings, so much that I often think of taking my life but I think "how would finheaven go on w/o me" so I don't do it.

Well something must drive you to be on here each business day during the week to spew your beliefs.


I have swatted away your nonsense for years including in this discussion. All he ahs are 2 SB MVPs which again can be debated whether he deserved them or not. How is a QB elite when he doesn't have a single elite level full season? again, it's great a ball stcuk to a helmet but that doesn't make someone elite.

So now I've been spewing nonsense for years? Interesting that you'd consider someone else's opinion "nonsense". Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you're above me.

He didn't deserve either MVP and isn't elite according to you. You can't be more biased so there's no point in discussing this further, similar to most other **** you mouth off about.

NYCBillsFan
06-21-2012, 09:01 PM
Yes it stings, so much that I often think of taking my life but I think "how would finheaven go on w/o me" so I don't do it.

I have swatted away your nonsense for years including in this discussion. All he ahs are 2 SB MVPs which again can be debated whether he deserved them or not. How is a QB elite when he doesn't have a single elite level full season? again, it's great a ball stcuk to a helmet but that doesn't make someone elite.

So Eli makes it to two Super Bowls wins them and the SB MVP and according to you doesn't have two elite full seasons to back them up so it debatable if he's "elite". Uh-huh. Hey, how did Sanchez look in '09 and '10? Were those elite? Hardly, yet he still gets praise from what he did in the postseason. Why doesn't Eli get the same criteria of scrutiny?

EDIT: Mind showing me Sanchez's elite numbers from his elite full season(s)?

nyjunc
06-22-2012, 08:28 AM
Well something must drive you to be on here each business day during the week to spew your beliefs.



So now I've been spewing nonsense for years? Interesting that you'd consider someone else's opinion "nonsense". Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you're above me.

He didn't deserve either MVP and isn't elite according to you. You can't be more biased so there's no point in discussing this further, similar to most other **** you mouth off about.

The facts back me up, you show us your definition of elite and the Giants don't qualify yet you tell me they are elite. There were better choices for SB MVP, Eli doesn't have a single elite full season. All you have are the 2 SB MVPs- a great start but to be elite you must consistently be among the best- has he consistently been among the best?


So Eli makes it to two Super Bowls wins them and the SB MVP and according to you doesn't have two elite full seasons to back them up so it debatable if he's "elite". Uh-huh. Hey, how did Sanchez look in '09 and '10? Were those elite? Hardly, yet he still gets praise from what he did in the postseason. Why doesn't Eli get the same criteria of scrutiny?

EDIT: Mind showing me Sanchez's elite numbers from his elite full season(s)?

So b/c he won the SB that means he had 2 great full seasons? In 2007 he threw 23 TDs and 20 INTs, led his team to 10-6 and a WC berth- that's elite? Last year he had similar TD to INT #s as Sanchez, led his team to 9 wins in a weak div- that's elite?

Eli gets praise for what he did in postseason- where did I knock him for postseason?

when did I call Sanchez elite? You guys are great at deflecting and making stuff up.

Funky Fin
06-22-2012, 09:03 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/06/jetssucksucksucktshirt_design-1.png

SpurzN703
06-22-2012, 10:31 AM
The facts back me up, you show us your definition of elite and the Giants don't qualify yet you tell me they are elite. There were better choices for SB MVP, Eli doesn't have a single elite full season. All you have are the 2 SB MVPs- a great start but to be elite you must consistently be among the best- has he consistently been among the best?

The only facts here are the two SB wins and the SB MVPs. You saying Manning didn't deserve either MVP isn't a fact, that's your unhinged biased opinion.

Do you realize how silly you look telling me that my definition of what elite isn't doesn't qualify when I say it does? Your interpretation of my elite has nothing to do with my belief of what elite is.

SpurzN703
06-22-2012, 10:33 AM
There were better choices for SB MVP

Your opinion, not a fact.


Eli doesn't have a single elite full season. All you have are the 2 SB MVPs- a great start but to be elite you must consistently be among the best- has he consistently been among the best?

Explain how he has more SB wins and SB MVPs than any of your elite QBs of today not Tom Brady/B Roerth then. I know I know, he didn't deserve the MVPs. Stupid biased NFL.

JETSJETSJETS
06-22-2012, 10:44 AM
Yeah, Eli is not an elite QB. Winning couple of SBs doesn't make you elite even with two SB MVP. Now if he had two NFL MVP, we could have made an argument for it. He had an excellent 2011 season. Thats just one season out of 8, but he's on the right track so he's not that far off. However, to be elite, you need ur QB to be consistent. If he can repeat the 2011 season performance in 2012 and beyond, I will consider him elite. Statistically, Tony Romo has had a better career than Eli, but no one is claiming him elite either (probably cuz he didn't have tyree to along with couple of muffed punts).

Funky Fin
06-22-2012, 10:51 AM
Winning couple of SBs doesn't make you elite even with two SB MVP.

I'm starting to think Jet fans are actually just a brainwashed New Jersey cult. Purely insane comment.

nyjunc
06-22-2012, 11:03 AM
The only facts here are the two SB wins and the SB MVPs. You saying Manning didn't deserve either MVP isn't a fact, that's your unhinged biased opinion.

Do you realize how silly you look telling me that my definition of what elite isn't doesn't qualify when I say it does? Your interpretation of my elite has nothing to do with my belief of what elite is.

You didn't even use your own definition.


Your opinion, not a fact.



Explain how he has more SB wins and SB MVPs than any of your elite QBs of today not Tom Brady/B Roerth then. I know I know, he didn't deserve the MVPs. Stupid biased NFL.

It is my fact based opinion.

He's played on better teams.

---------- Post added at 11:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 AM ----------


Yeah, Eli is not an elite QB. Winning couple of SBs doesn't make you elite even with two SB MVP. Now if he had two NFL MVP, we could have made an argument for it. He had an excellent 2011 season. Thats just one season out of 8, but he's on the right track so he's not that far off. However, to be elite, you need ur QB to be consistent. If he can repeat the 2011 season performance in 2012 and beyond, I will consider him elite. Statistically, Tony Romo has had a better career than Eli, but no one is claiming him elite either (probably cuz he didn't have tyree to along with couple of muffed punts).

2 SB titles can help you become elite but you need full season success and his '11 season was very good but not elite. he had just 3 more TDs and 2 less INts than Sanchez who supposedly sucks and he led his team to one more win than Sanchez. Either Eli isn't elite or sanchez is close to elite.

SpurzN703
06-22-2012, 11:13 AM
You didn't even use your own definition.

What the hell are you talking about?


It is my fact based opinion. He's played on better teams

100% opinion

---------- Post added at 11:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 AM ----------


Either Eli isn't elite or sanchez is close to elite.

I'm actually shocked you don't think Sanchez is elite seeing as how you think the Jets are

SpurzN703
06-22-2012, 11:16 AM
Yeah, Eli is not an elite QB. Winning couple of SBs doesn't make you elite even with two SB MVP. Now if he had two NFL MVP, we could have made an argument for it. He had an excellent 2011 season. Thats just one season out of 8, but he's on the right track so he's not that far off. However, to be elite, you need ur QB to be consistent. If he can repeat the 2011 season performance in 2012 and beyond, I will consider him elite. Statistically, Tony Romo has had a better career than Eli, but no one is claiming him elite either (probably cuz he didn't have tyree to along with couple of muffed punts).

Tony Romo has won one whole playoff game. There's no way he's had a better career.

Clark Judge


Nope, elite quarterbacks are the best of the best of the best, and when I think of an elite quarterback, I think of someone like Tom Brady (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/187741/tom-brady) or Peyton Manning (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/12531/peyton-manning). Brady has been to five Super Bowls, winning three of them, and was the league's first unanimous MVP. Manning is a four-time MVP and has been to two Super Bowls. I think of Ben Roethlisberger (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/493043/ben-roethlisberger), too. And Drew Brees (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/235197/drew-brees), Eli Manning (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/493004/eli-manning) and Aaron Rodgers (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/419780/aaron-rodgers). But Tony Romo? Sorry, but you must win more than one playoff game to make the list. Romo has been the Cowboys' starting quarterback for the past six years, and he has won a lot more games than he has lost, which is great. But then what? Well, then you look at his playoff record, and it's not so great.

Bingit
06-22-2012, 11:18 AM
Yeah, Eli is not an elite QB. Winning couple of SBs doesn't make you elite even with two SB MVP. Now if he had two NFL MVP, we could have made an argument for it. He had an excellent 2011 season. Thats just one season out of 8, but he's on the right track so he's not that far off. However, to be elite, you need ur QB to be consistent. If he can repeat the 2011 season performance in 2012 and beyond, I will consider him elite. Statistically, Tony Romo has had a better career than Eli, but no one is claiming him elite either (probably cuz he didn't have tyree to along with couple of muffed punts).

Dude...stop before you embarrass yourself anymore. We already have our quota of Jets homers on this site. We don't need anymore. Eli is elite and the chargers beat themselves in the playoffs. Get over it!

nyjunc
06-22-2012, 11:35 AM
What the hell are you talking about?



100% opinion

---------- Post added at 11:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:13 AM ----------



I'm actually shocked you don't think Sanchez is elite seeing as how you think the Jets are

How many times must we go opver it? your silly definition of elite where you must win a SB then be a top team for the next few years. using your defintion the '07 Giants were not elite and for the '11 team it is TBD.

fact based opinion. The D won the SB in 2007, the GW drive happened b/c a player had a ball stick to his helmet. There were multiple players more deserving. In '11 Eli did more but againt he D held down a great O and Tuck had a sack that was a safety which was HUGE in that game.


I deal in reality, the Jets have been an elite team under rex.



Romo is not better than Eli. Romo is not elite, never has been, he is a great fantasy QB.

SpurzN703
06-22-2012, 11:42 AM
How many times must we go opver it? your silly definition of elite where you must win a SB then be a top team for the next few years. using your defintion the '07 Giants were not elite and for the '11 team it is TBD.

Junc, I seriously don't understand what your problem is. I have never said the 2007 NY Giants were elite. Not one time. Yet you continue to say I did. You accuse us of deflecting but you yourself don't actually listen.

The Giants are now elite b/c of their 2011 SB win. 2 SB wins in 5 years with what I consider successful seasons in between is elite.



I deal in reality, the Jets have been an elite team under rex.

Your reality yes. Not the reality




Romo is not better than Eli. Romo is not elite, never has been, he is a great fantasy QB.

I'm with you there. JETS brought Romo up.

nyjunc
06-22-2012, 11:59 AM
Junc, I seriously don't understand what your problem is. I have never said the 2007 NY Giants were elite. Not one time. Yet you continue to say I did. You accuse us of deflecting but you yourself don't actually listen.

The Giants are now elite b/c of their 2011 SB win. 2 SB wins in 5 years with what I consider successful seasons in between is elite.




Your reality yes. Not the reality





I'm with you there. JETS brought Romo up.

But you said you have to have success post SB so 3 years post '07 they didn't win a playoff game and missed the playoffs 2 of 3 years.

The Giants are elite now and they were in '07 and '08 too.

The New Guy
06-22-2012, 12:03 PM
But you said you have to have success post SB so 3 years post '07 they didn't win a playoff game and missed the playoffs 2 of 3 years.

The Giants are elite now and they were in '07 and '08 too.

That is your definition of success. Winning 30 games in 3 seasons is his, and I have to agree that it is a form of success.

nyjunc
06-22-2012, 12:34 PM
That is your definition of success. Winning 30 games in 3 seasons is his, and I have to agree that it is a form of success.

You guys make fun of me for pumping up 4 playoff wins and 2 title game apps so how would zero playoff wins w/ 1 playoff app in 3 years be considered a success?

The New Guy
06-22-2012, 01:08 PM
You guys make fun of me for pumping up 4 playoff wins and 2 title game apps so how would zero playoff wins w/ 1 playoff app in 3 years be considered a success?


Anything less than a Super Bowl win is a failer, but there are other levels of success. Super Bowl, Playoff and regular season wins are all forms of success. 30 wins in 3 years is a form of success. Especially considering that it is sandwiched in between 2 Super Bowl wins.

SpurzN703
06-22-2012, 01:27 PM
But you said you have to have success post SB so 3 years post '07 they didn't win a playoff game and missed the playoffs 2 of 3 years.

The Giants are elite now and they were in '07 and '08 too.

The Giants were not elite in 2007.

JETSJETSJETS
06-22-2012, 01:27 PM
Dude...stop before you embarrass yourself anymore. We already have our quota of Jets homers on this site. We don't need anymore. Eli is elite and the chargers beat themselves in the playoffs. Get over it!

Explain how Eli is already elite and explain how Chargers only scored one TD in the first 58 minutes of the game....

SpurzN703
06-22-2012, 01:30 PM
You guys make fun of me for pumping up 4 playoff wins and 2 title game apps

I don't make fun of you. I've said countless times that I respect the Jets for doing what they did. I might be the only ally you have in that regard. I still don't think that makes them elite.


so how would zero playoff wins w/ 1 playoff app in 3 years be considered a success?

Those 3 years were sandwiched in between SB wins. SB win, 30-18 next 3 years, then another SB win is elite!

---------- Post added at 01:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 PM ----------


That is your definition of success. Winning 30 games in 3 seasons is his, and I have to agree that it is a form of success.

Going 10-6 and missing the playoffs. I can see why someone would consider that unsuccessful since they didn't get in but winning 10 games to me is having success. Other teams just had more success that year.

The Pats going 11-5 in 2008 and missing the playoffs. They had success too did they not?

nyjunc
06-22-2012, 01:58 PM
Anything less than a Super Bowl win is a failer, but there are other levels of success. Super Bowl, Playoff and regular season wins are all forms of success. 30 wins in 3 years is a form of success. Especially considering that it is sandwiched in between 2 Super Bowl wins.

30 wins in 3 years w/ ZERO playoff wins, 1 playoff app is not a success under any circumstances.


I don't make fun of you. I've said countless times that I respect the Jets for doing what they did. I might be the only ally you have in that regard. I still don't think that makes them elite.



Those 3 years were sandwiched in between SB wins. SB win, 30-18 next 3 years, then another SB win is elite!

---------- Post added at 01:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:29 PM ----------



Going 10-6 and missing the playoffs. I can see why someone would consider that unsuccessful since they didn't get in but winning 10 games to me is having success. Other teams just had more success that year.

The Pats going 11-5 in 2008 and missing the playoffs. They had success too did they not?

They won a meaningless game in week 17 to get that 10th win. The game for the playoffs was the week before at GB where they got humiliated w/ the elite QB throwing 4 INTs. so 10 wins w/o the playoffs is not success, it's better than going 4-12 but it was not a successful year. 2008 they went 12-4, had the top seed and got bounced int heir first game but at least they had a great reg season, in '10 they didn't and the record was a little misleading.

SpurzN703
06-22-2012, 02:39 PM
30 wins in 3 years w/ ZERO playoff wins, 1 playoff app is not a success under any circumstances.

They won a meaningless game in week 17 to get that 10th win. The game for the playoffs was the week before at GB where they got humiliated w/ the elite QB throwing 4 INTs. so 10 wins w/o the playoffs is not success, it's better than going 4-12 but it was not a successful year. 2008 they went 12-4, had the top seed and got bounced int heir first game but at least they had a great reg season, in '10 they didn't and the record was a little misleading.

Still successful to me

---------- Post added at 02:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 PM ----------


Explain how Eli is already elite and explain how Chargers only scored one TD in the first 58 minutes of the game....

You can't just scroll through the 2,500 pages we've already used up talking about this? Why add to it?

nyjunc
06-22-2012, 02:42 PM
Still successful to me

---------- Post added at 02:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:38 PM ----------



You can't just scroll through the 2,500 pages we've already used up talking about this? Why add to it?

Not to me or most people.

The New Guy
06-22-2012, 02:56 PM
Going 10-6 and missing the playoffs. I can see why someone would consider that unsuccessful since they didn't get in but winning 10 games to me is having success. Other teams just had more success that year.

The Pats going 11-5 in 2008 and missing the playoffs. They had success too did they not?

Right! It is success, just to a lower degree. I think there are three forms of success in the NFL. The ultimate success is obviously a Super Bowl win. The second is playoff wins which get you closer to the Super Bowl, the 3rd is regular season wins which get you closer to the playoffs. For 08 NE, I think you have to consider winning 11 games without Tom Brady a successful season, even though they missed the playoffs.


30 wins in 3 years w/ ZERO playoff wins, 1 playoff app is not a success under any circumstances.


Anything other than a Super Bowl win is not considered success, but that doesn't mean that there are not levels of success other than a Super Bowl win. If a playoff win can be considered a success when you get knocked out and don't make the Super Bowl, then regular season wins can be considered a success without winning a playoff game. It is just one step lower. If the Rams, Browns, or any other bad team happens to win 10 games this year and misses the playoffs, their seasons would be considered successful.


Not to me or most people.

Then I don't see how you can consider 2 AFCCG losses a success. Winning a Super Bowl is the #1 goal, not getting to the AFCCG. I agree that it can be considered a form of success, but I also think that regular season wins can be considered another form of success. Just on a lower lever.

nyjunc
06-22-2012, 03:05 PM
Right! It is success, just to a lower degree. I think there are three forms of success in the NFL. The ultimate success is obviously a Super Bowl win. The second is playoff wins which get you closer to the Super Bowl, the 3rd is regular season wins which get you closer to the playoffs. For 08 NE, I think you have to consider winning 11 games without Tom Brady a successful season, even though they missed the playoffs.



Anything other than a Super Bowl win is not considered success, but that doesn't mean that there are not levels of success other than a Super Bowl win. If a playoff win can be considered a success when you get knocked out and don't make the Super Bowl, then regular season wins can be considered a success without winning a playoff game. It is just one step lower. If the Rams, Browns, or any other bad team happens to win 10 games this year and misses the playoffs, their seasons would be considered successful.

Despite a creampuff sched AI do consider NE '08 a successful season since Brady got hurt, I don't consider NYG 10-6 in '10 to be successful b/c they played essentally a playoff game in week 16 and got blown out. The week 17 game was essentially meaningless.

if anything other than a SB is not considered a success who are there levels of success including non SB winning seasons?

I agree, if SL, Cle, etc... win 10 games their season is a success(unless they started 8-1 or something like that) but for a team off a SB how would the next 3 seasons w/ only 1 playoff app and zero playoff wins be considered a success?

The New Guy
06-22-2012, 03:22 PM
Despite a creampuff sched AI do consider NE '08 a successful season since Brady got hurt, I don't consider NYG 10-6 in '10 to be successful b/c they played essentally a playoff game in week 16 and got blown out. The week 17 game was essentially meaningless.

if anything other than a SB is not considered a success who are there levels of success including non SB winning seasons?

I agree, if SL, Cle, etc... win 10 games their season is a success(unless they started 8-1 or something like that) but for a team off a SB how would the next 3 seasons w/ only 1 playoff app and zero playoff wins be considered a success?

If an AFCCG loss can be considered a success, then I don't understand how winning 12 games and losing a Div playoff game can't be another form of it. Winning the Super Bowl is the #1 goal for every team. Just because anything less than a Super Bowl win it is not considered a success doesn't mean that there are not different levels of success to consider for teams. You like to point that out all of the time with the Jets AFCCG losses. If that can be considered success, then just take that one step lower. The Giants had 2 winning seasons out of 3 sandwiched in between 2 Super Bowl wins. I think you have to consider that a form of success.

nyjunc
06-22-2012, 03:32 PM
If an AFCCG loss can be considered a success, then I don't understand how winning 12 games and losing a Div playoff game can't be another form of it. Winning the Super Bowl is the #1 goal for every team. Just because anything less than a Super Bowl win it is not considered a success doesn't mean that there are not different levels of success to consider for teams. You like to point that out all of the time with the Jets AFCCG losses. If that can be considered success, then just take that one step lower. The Giants had 2 winning seasons out of 3 sandwiched in between 2 Super Bowl wins. I think you have to consider that a form of success.


How can you say anything other than a SB win is not a success then tell me there are levels? I agree there are levels, I don't agree that the only way you can have success is to win the SB. i think for a team like NE only the SB is a success, for us going into last yar only getting to a SB or winning it would be a success- a 3rd title game loss would not have been a success last year. I think it depends on the team and circumstances, after winning a SB going 3 years w/o a playoff win is not a success.

The New Guy
06-22-2012, 03:53 PM
How can you say anything other than a SB win is not a success then tell me there are levels? I agree there are levels, I don't agree that the only way you can have success is to win the SB. i think for a team like NE only the SB is a success, for us going into last yar only getting to a SB or winning it would be a success- a 3rd title game loss would not have been a success last year. I think it depends on the team and circumstances, after winning a SB going 3 years w/o a playoff win is not a success.

I said anything less than a SB win is not considered a successful season. I don't think NE would consider their 07 season a success, but that doesn't mean that there was not a degree of success during that season. The Jets made the AFCCG in 09, so why do you consider the 10 season a success (another AFCCG loss) but then say anything less than a SB app in 11 was not a success? I would think that you would apply that standard to the 10 season as well. You like to say that the Jets were successful 2 out of the last 3 seasons, but if you go by your own standard you just stated, they were not successful 2 out of 3 seasons.

I agree that there are other levels of success, but no one else cares about them other than the fans of that particular team. You are determining what you consider to be successful based on how a team performed the year before. I know that some teams have higher expectations than others. I'm sure the Giants would not consider those 3 years successful, but that doesn't mean there was not a degree of success during that time.

JETSJETSJETS
06-22-2012, 05:41 PM
You can't just scroll through the 2,500 pages we've already used up talking about this? Why add to it?

We haven't talked about SD vs. Jets game. You will always be biased against Jets. I will always be biased against the Dolphins and for Jets. "The New Guy" keeps talking about the game would have changed in SDs favor if they made those kicks. I talk about how Jets would have reacted differently had it been a 17-13 lead for them with two minutes to go (instead of prevent D). Chargers weren't conservative at all when they had a 4 pt lead so I don't think much changes from their offense where as their D had just given up a long rushing TD to Greene when they needed a stop real bad.

JETSJETSJETS
06-22-2012, 05:49 PM
I said anything less than a SB win is not considered a successful season. I don't think NE would consider their 07 season a success, but that doesn't mean that there was not a degree of success during that season. The Jets made the AFCCG in 09, so why do you consider the 10 season a success (another AFCCG loss) but then say anything less than a SB app in 11 was not a success? I would think that you would apply that standard to the 10 season as well. You like to say that the Jets were successful 2 out of the last 3 seasons, but if you go by your own standard you just stated, they were not successful 2 out of 3 seasons.

I agree that there are other levels of success, but no one else cares about them other than the fans of that particular team. You are determining what you consider to be successful based on how a team performed the year before. I know that some teams have higher expectations than others. I'm sure the Giants would not consider those 3 years successful, but that doesn't mean there was not a degree of success during that time.

IMO, a successful season is where a team meets or exceeds expectation. Whereas SB is the goal, its not the expectation for every team. You are mixing goals with expectations. Goals are ALWAYS set higher than expectations. Colts are not expected to win 10 games. I think they'll win 6 unless Luck lights it up. Now if Colts win 11 games and win a wild card game and lose the next, their season was a successful season...why? Cuz they are in a rebuilding process, just like the Jets were in 2009 with rookie QB, rookie HC and rookie RB. Patriots are strong contenders from the SB. If they don't win the SB, it becomes an unsuccessful season for them simply because their expectations are already set at SB victory.

SpurzN703
06-22-2012, 06:07 PM
Not to me or most people.

Another 100% opinion with some irrationality mixed in. Who are these 'most' people?

---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------


We haven't talked about SD vs. Jets game. You will always be biased against Jets. I will always be biased against the Dolphins and for Jets. "The New Guy" keeps talking about the game would have changed in SDs favor if they made those kicks. I talk about how Jets would have reacted differently had it been a 17-13 lead for them with two minutes to go (instead of prevent D). Chargers weren't conservative at all when they had a 4 pt lead so I don't think much changes from their offense where as their D had just given up a long rushing TD to Greene when they needed a stop real bad.

I'm not talking about those games. I'm not biased against any team. I've given the Jets FULL credit for getting to the AFCCG in 2009 and 2010. I'd love for the Dolphins to have done the same. I would've loved the Dolphins going to the SB 4 times like Buffalo did too. As a 31 yr old fan, I have no clue what the glory days for this team was like. All I've really ever known is heartbreak.

If the Jets were elite in my opinion I'd call them elite. There is no bias here. I could give two ****s about the Giants but they're now elite to me.

SpurzN703
06-22-2012, 06:14 PM
How can you say anything other than a SB win is not a success then tell me there are levels? I agree there are levels, I don't agree that the only way you can have success is to win the SB. i think for a team like NE only the SB is a success, for us going into last yar only getting to a SB or winning it would be a success- a 3rd title game loss would not have been a success last year. I think it depends on the team and circumstances, after winning a SB going 3 years w/o a playoff win is not a success.

Expectations are a tricky thing. On one hand you have a SB champ that is expected to make the playoffs the following year and make noise. On the other hand, you have an up and coming team that people are picking as a darkhorse or even SB favorite.

How can there be both sides of it? There are different levels of measured success. The Dolphins going 8-8 or 9-7 this year would be a success seeing as how they are 7-9, 7-9, and 6-10 the last three years. The Packers could go 11-5 which is down from last year but can/will be considered a success.

If you improve on your record from either last year or the last few years that is successful to me. Having a winning pct of .625 in three years in between Super Bowl WINS is a success to me.

I'll go even further. If half your team gets injured and still manages to finish at 8-8 or better even with missing the playoffs, that's a success. There are multiple variables that exist in this topic like many other topics we discuss.

The New Guy
06-22-2012, 09:56 PM
We haven't talked about SD vs. Jets game. You will always be biased against Jets. I will always be biased against the Dolphins and for Jets. "The New Guy" keeps talking about the game would have changed in SDs favor if they made those kicks. I talk about how Jets would have reacted differently had it been a 17-13 lead for them with two minutes to go (instead of prevent D). Chargers weren't conservative at all when they had a 4 pt lead so I don't think much changes from their offense where as their D had just given up a long rushing TD to Greene when they needed a stop real bad.

No, I've been talking about how it changes the game for both sides. The 6 points from the FGs is not the only thing that could have changed in SD's favor. You assume it would still have been a 17 - 13 lead for the Jets when SD got the ball back with 3:36 left, but if the game changes, it changes for both sides. Your opinion is that the Jets don't go into prevent and stop SD from scoring, and mine is that SD doesn't turn the ball over up 7 late in the 3rd. Both logical assumptions. No one knows what really would have happened and you are obviously going to have a different take on it (as an admitted bias Jets fan) than I am. I'm not going to change your opinion, and you are not going to change mine. There is no point in discussing it any further.


IMO, a successful season is where a team meets or exceeds expectation. Whereas SB is the goal, its not the expectation for every team. You are mixing goals with expectations. Goals are ALWAYS set higher than expectations. Colts are not expected to win 10 games. I think they'll win 6 unless Luck lights it up. Now if Colts win 11 games and win a wild card game and lose the next, their season was a successful season...why? Cuz they are in a rebuilding process, just like the Jets were in 2009 with rookie QB, rookie HC and rookie RB. Patriots are strong contenders from the SB. If they don't win the SB, it becomes an unsuccessful season for them simply because their expectations are already set at SB victory.

I pretty much agree with that. I think the actual NFL players expectations are always going to be higher than the fans. I don't think the Dolphins players expected to be 6-10 last year while a lot of the fans did. The Packers won 10 regular season games and won the SB in 2010. They won 15 regular season games in 2011 but lost in their first playoff game in 2011. Obviously for the Packers fans and players, that season would not be considered a success, but that doesn't mean that someone else couldn't view that 2011 season (where they only lost 1 regular season game) as a success. There are different levels of success and individuals will have different views of what that is. That is why I have always defended "Phinz" on his view. If the Giants went 4-12, 6-10, and 5-11, that would be a different story. But I don't think it is unreasonable for Phinz to consider the Giants winning 30 games in 3 seasons between SB wins as successful.

Kinzua
06-23-2012, 07:15 AM
Yeah, Eli is not an elite QB. Winning couple of SBs doesn't make you elite even with two SB MVP. Now if he had two NFL MVP, we could have made an argument for it. He had an excellent 2011 season. Thats just one season out of 8, but he's on the right track so he's not that far off. However, to be elite, you need ur QB to be consistent. If he can repeat the 2011 season performance in 2012 and beyond, I will consider him elite. Statistically, Tony Romo has had a better career than Eli, but no one is claiming him elite either (probably cuz he didn't have tyree to along with couple of muffed punts).

I agree with this. Eli has been streaky virtually his entire pro career until last seaon when he literally carried the Giants most of the season while the defense and running game struggled. It was only at the very end of the season that the Giants got their collective act together to put on a good run to the SB. If Eli can repeat his 2011 seasonal performance in 2012, then he's bonafide "elite" in my book whether the Giants make the playoffs in 2012 or not (they almost didn't in 2011).

Kinzua
06-23-2012, 07:21 AM
If an AFCCG loss can be considered a success, then I don't understand how winning 12 games and losing a Div playoff game can't be another form of it. Winning the Super Bowl is the #1 goal for every team.

Because it wasn't the Jets. Teams that win 12 or 13 games a year are usually pretenders. It's back-to-back AFCCG losses after 9 and 11 win seasons that make the Jests "elite".

// sarcasm off

nyjunc
06-25-2012, 08:47 AM
Another 100% opinion with some irrationality mixed in. Who are these 'most' people?

---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:05 PM ----------



I'm not talking about those games. I'm not biased against any team. I've given the Jets FULL credit for getting to the AFCCG in 2009 and 2010. I'd love for the Dolphins to have done the same. I would've loved the Dolphins going to the SB 4 times like Buffalo did too. As a 31 yr old fan, I have no clue what the glory days for this team was like. All I've really ever known is heartbreak.

If the Jets were elite in my opinion I'd call them elite. There is no bias here. I could give two ****s about the Giants but they're now elite to me.

Most people that follow this game. After winning a SB going the next 3 seasons missing postseason twice and winning zero playoff games is not success. It may look good to a dolphin or Bills fan but that was not a successful 3 year stretch for the Giants- if it was Coughlin wouldn't have been on the hot seat again about to b fired before their SB run.


Expectations are a tricky thing. On one hand you have a SB champ that is expected to make the playoffs the following year and make noise. On the other hand, you have an up and coming team that people are picking as a darkhorse or even SB favorite.

How can there be both sides of it? There are different levels of measured success. The Dolphins going 8-8 or 9-7 this year would be a success seeing as how they are 7-9, 7-9, and 6-10 the last three years. The Packers could go 11-5 which is down from last year but can/will be considered a success.

If you improve on your record from either last year or the last few years that is successful to me. Having a winning pct of .625 in three years in between Super Bowl WINS is a success to me.

I'll go even further. If half your team gets injured and still manages to finish at 8-8 or better even with missing the playoffs, that's a success. There are multiple variables that exist in this topic like many other topics we discuss.

I agree, there are different levels of success. I was just asking TNG how on one had you can only have success winning a SB and on the other he says there are levels of success. I agree w/ the point about levels of success.

Btw SBs w/ 1 playoff app, 2 missed playoff apps and zero playoff wins is not a success any way you slice it.

13ktownguy
06-25-2012, 03:16 PM
:crazy:
so b/c he won 2 SB MVPs that he probably didn't deserve that makes him elite. He doesn't need to do another thing, he can never have an elite full season, he can throw 25 INTs a year ago, he can not win a playoff game in 6 of 8 seasons, throw for under 60% in half of his seasons, lead the league in INTs twice, never make a single AP team but he's elite b/c a ball stuck to a helmet.

SpurzN703
06-25-2012, 03:25 PM
Most people that follow this game. After winning a SB going the next 3 seasons missing postseason twice and winning zero playoff games is not success. It may look good to a dolphin or Bills fan but that was not a successful 3 year stretch for the Giants- if it was Coughlin wouldn't have been on the hot seat again about to b fired before their SB run.

Students of the game like you huh? If the Jets had gone 30-18 in three years I highly doubt you'd say that was an unsuccessful run.


Btw SBs w/ 1 playoff app, 2 missed playoff apps and zero playoff wins is not a success any way you slice it.

I disagree

nyjunc
06-25-2012, 03:41 PM
Students of the game like you huh? If the Jets had gone 30-18 in three years I highly doubt you'd say that was an unsuccessful run.



I disagree

If we were coming off a SB win I definitely would. That 3 year stretch was not a successful one.

Kinzua
06-25-2012, 04:33 PM
Most people that follow this game. After winning a SB going the next 3 seasons missing postseason twice and winning zero playoff games is not success. It may look good to a dolphin or Bills fan but that was not a successful 3 year stretch for the Giants- if it was Coughlin wouldn't have been on the hot seat again about to b fired before their SB run.



I agree, there are different levels of success. I was just asking TNG how on one had you can only have success winning a SB and on the other he says there are levels of success. I agree w/ the point about levels of success.

Btw SBs w/ 1 playoff app, 2 missed playoff apps and zero playoff wins is not a success any way you slice it.


I think this is absolutely the most absurd statement you've ever made here. The Gnats bookended that "unsuccessful" 3 year stint with Super Bowl wins. :crazy: They won 2 Super Bowls you fool!!! What they did in between doesn't matter. :crazy:

That's like saying the Pats were "unsuccessful" because they missed the playoffs in 2002. Too stupid to be true. :rolleyes2:


Of course that simply underscores that you have absolutely NO clue about what it's like to win a Super Bowl -- or even lose one for that matter.

nyjunc
06-25-2012, 04:37 PM
I think this is absolutely the most absurd statement you've ever made here. The Gnats bookended that "unsuccessful" 3 year stints with Super Bowl wins. :crazy: They won 2 Super Bowls you fool!!! What they did in between doesn't matter. :crazy:

That's like saying the Pats were "unsuccessful" because they missed the playoffs in 2002. Too stupid to be true. :rolleyes2:

you need to pay attention, according to phinz you need to have success the few years after you win a SB in order to be considered elite. To me the Giants were elite the minute they won that 1st SB and bases on 3 in 5 seasons they are elite over that 5 year stretch but using his criteria they are not b/c they didn't have success in btw. On what planet is not winning a playoff game and missing 2 of 3 postseasons a success for a team coming off a SB win? Maybe for the Bills they'd throw a parade(it would probably be blacked out though) if they had a 3 year stretch like that but for a team off a SB win?

SpurzN703
06-25-2012, 05:35 PM
If we were coming off a SB win I definitely would. That 3 year stretch was not a successful one.

The Jets run recently wasn't successful?

---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 PM ----------


you need to pay attention, according to phinz you need to have success the few years after you win a SB in order to be considered elite. To me the Giants were elite the minute they won that 1st SB and bases on 3 in 5 seasons they are elite over that 5 year stretch but using his criteria they are not b/c they didn't have success in btw. On what planet is not winning a playoff game and missing 2 of 3 postseasons a success for a team coming off a SB win? Maybe for the Bills they'd throw a parade(it would probably be blacked out though) if they had a 3 year stretch like that but for a team off a SB win?

You make it seem like it's so common for Super Bowl winning teams to win the next 25 Super Bowls.

nyjunc
06-25-2012, 06:01 PM
The Jets run recently wasn't successful?

---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:33 PM ----------



You make it seem like it's so common for Super Bowl winning teams to win the next 25 Super Bowls.

The jets didn't miss 2 of 3 postseasons and not win a single postseason game. They won 4 postseason games, made 2 title games- that's a success.


is winning a postseason game too much to ask for? making the playoffs more than you miss? you think GB will go the next 2 years missing the playoffs? NO won a playoff game this year, Pitt was back in the SB 2 years later,...

SpurzN703
06-25-2012, 11:44 PM
The jets didn't miss 2 of 3 postseasons and not win a single postseason game. They won 4 postseason games, made 2 title games- that's a success.


is winning a postseason game too much to ask for? making the playoffs more than you miss? you think GB will go the next 2 years missing the playoffs? NO won a playoff game this year, Pitt was back in the SB 2 years later,...

All true.

And the Giants have still won more SBs (other than Pitts and NE) than any of those teams. I'd rather do that than anything else.

nyjunc
06-26-2012, 08:14 AM
All true.

And the Giants have still won more SBs (other than Pitts and NE) than any of those teams. I'd rather do that than anything else.

I would trade for what they have done obviously but they didn't have successful seasons overall in the 3 seasons btw their SBs.

DisturbedShifty
06-26-2012, 08:31 AM
I would trade for what they have done obviously but they didn't have successful seasons overall in the 3 seasons btw their SBs.
Clarify the highlighted part. That didn't make sense to me. No joke, I really didn't understand it.

nyjunc
06-26-2012, 08:39 AM
Clarify the highlighted part. That didn't make sense to me. No joke, I really didn't understand it.

This goes back to phinz saying in order for him to call a team elite they needed to win the SB then have success in the next few years. Coming off a SB how is missing the playoffs 67% of the time and winning zero playoff games considered a success?

DisturbedShifty
06-26-2012, 09:00 AM
This goes back to phinz saying in order for him to call a team elite they needed to win the SB then have success in the next few years. Coming off a SB how is missing the playoffs 67% of the time and winning zero playoff games considered a success?
I would have to agree with Phinz. I mean there are plenty of teams that won the Super Bowl and couldn't get back to the playoffs the next year. So I definitely wouldn't consider those teams elite. Nor would I conisder teams that constantly make the playoffs every year, or every other year, elite. I would consider those teams upper echelon/outstanding, but not elite. But teams like the Patriots and the Steelers most definitely are elite. I would consider the Colts (with Manning), Chargers, Ravens and the Packers upper echelon/outstanding teams. With the Jets just outside that bubble. If they can make the playoffs again this year, then I will lump them in with those teams. That is just my opinion.

nyjunc
06-26-2012, 09:22 AM
I would have to agree with Phinz. I mean there are plenty of teams that won the Super Bowl and couldn't get back to the playoffs the next year. So I definitely wouldn't consider those teams elite. Nor would I conisder teams that constantly make the playoffs every year, or every other year, elite. I would consider those teams upper echelon/outstanding, but not elite. But teams like the Patriots and the Steelers most definitely are elite. I would consider the Colts (with Manning), Chargers, Ravens and the Packers upper echelon/outstanding teams. With the Jets just outside that bubble. If they can make the playoffs again this year, then I will lump them in with those teams. That is just my opinion.

any team that wins a SB is elite and they get a pass for the next season w/ the SB hangover but 3 years of zero playoff wins and that's not a success.

How can you consider the Chargers ahead of us when we have had more postseason success in the last decade including going 2-0 in postseason AT San Diego? Bal has had similar success, if you inclide 2000 Bal beats us but if it's '01-present the teams are very close.

SD has had SB talent and hasn't done much w/ it. Let's go 2001-2011:

playoff apps:

Bal 7
NYJ 6
SD 5

playoff wins:

Bal 6
NYJ 6
SD 3

WC record:

Bal 4-1
NYJ 4-2
SD 2-1

div rd record:

NYJ 2-2
Bal 2-4
SD 1-3

Title game apps(none of these teams has won one)

NYJ 2
Bal 2
SD 1


The Jets and ravens are pretty even w/ SD behind both

Funky Fin
06-26-2012, 09:54 AM
Pipe down already. Jets ****in' suck.

SpurzN703
06-26-2012, 10:28 AM
This goes back to phinz saying in order for him to call a team elite they needed to win the SB then have success in the next few years. Coming off a SB how is missing the playoffs 67% of the time and winning zero playoff games considered a success?

.625 winning percentage is a successful run. It isn't the ultimate successful run but it's still successful. Hell, you like to bemoan the Giants playoff game at S.F. saying a few calls went their way to help them win. It seems like you haven't really given them the full credit they deserve anyway.

I get that they're the rival team in your favorite team's city but it is what it is.

SpurzN703
06-26-2012, 10:37 AM
I would have to agree with Phinz. I mean there are plenty of teams that won the Super Bowl and couldn't get back to the playoffs the next year. So I definitely wouldn't consider those teams elite. Nor would I conisder teams that constantly make the playoffs every year, or every other year, elite. I would consider those teams upper echelon/outstanding, but not elite. But teams like the Patriots and the Steelers most definitely are elite. I would consider the Colts (with Manning), Chargers, Ravens and the Packers upper echelon/outstanding teams. With the Jets just outside that bubble. If they can make the playoffs again this year, then I will lump them in with those teams. That is just my opinion.

I'd call these different levels like this: Elite, Upper Echelon, Average to Good, and Mediocre.

As I've said time and time again, you have to get to and win a Super Bowl before even being considered elite. If the Giants didn't win this past year, they wouldn't be considered elite to me. They weren't elite after 2007 even with their SB win.

Elite - Giants, Patriots, Steelers
Upper Echelon teams - Packers, Saints, Ravens
Average to Good - Jets, Eagles, Chargers, Falcons, 49ers, Cowboys, Titans, Bengals, Bears
Mediocre - Everyone else

DisturbedShifty
06-26-2012, 10:49 AM
any team that wins a SB is elite and they get a pass for the next season w/ the SB hangover but 3 years of zero playoff wins and that's not a success.

How can you consider the Chargers ahead of us when we have had more postseason success in the last decade including going 2-0 in postseason AT San Diego? Bal has had similar success, if you inclide 2000 Bal beats us but if it's '01-present the teams are very close.

SD has had SB talent and hasn't done much w/ it. Let's go 2001-2011:

playoff apps:

Bal 7
NYJ 6
SD 5

playoff wins:

Bal 6
NYJ 6
SD 3

WC record:

Bal 4-1
NYJ 4-2
SD 2-1

div rd record:

NYJ 2-2
Bal 2-4
SD 1-3

Title game apps(none of these teams has won one)

NYJ 2
Bal 2
SD 1


The Jets and ravens are pretty even w/ SD behind both

I was using your formula of only counting the past three years. That and when i think of outstanding teams i usually think of division winners too. And yes i alread looked it up but with the Patriots in the division its hard to remember that there have been other AFC East champs. So anyway on this occasion you didn't use the three year timeline. So from the extended timeline, sure the Jets are in that group.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

Kinzua
06-26-2012, 11:08 AM
I would trade for what they have done obviously but they didn't have successful seasons overall in the 3 seasons btw their SBs.

Who the hell cares???? IF the Jests ever make the Super Bowl again in your lifetime, you might understand how awesome an accomplishment winning even one Super Bowl is. Going only three years between not just appearances, but wins, is %@*( amazing! You simply don't get it.

BTW, one of those "unsuccessful" seasons enabled the Gnats to draft Hakeem Nicks and another one Jason Pierre-Paul, so there was a silver lining to that supposed lack of success.

nyjunc
06-26-2012, 11:12 AM
I was using your formula of only counting the past three years. That and when i think of outstanding teams i usually think of division winners too. And yes i alread looked it up but with the Patriots in the division its hard to remember that there have been other AFC East champs. So anyway on this occasion you didn't use the three year timeline. So from the extended timeline, sure the Jets are in that group.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

I assumed you were talking more years, the last 3 years it's easier- how in the world can you say SD has been better?

2009-2011 playoff apps:

NE 3
Bal 3
NYJ 2
Pitt 2
Ind 2
Cin 2
Den 1
SD 1
KC 1
Hou 1

playoff wins:

NYJ 4
Bal 3
NE 2
Ind 2
Pit 2
Hou 1

title game apps:

NYJ 2
NE 1
Bal 1
Ind 1
Pit 1

AFC Champs:
NE 1
Ind 1
Pit 1


let's say 2 pts for playoff app, 3 for WC win, 4 for div rd win, 5 for title game win

NYJ 18
Bal 16
NE 15
Pit 13
Ind 13
Hou 5
Cin 4
SD 2
KC 2

---------- Post added at 11:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 AM ----------


Who the hell cares???? IF the Jests ever make the Super Bowl again in your lifetime, you might understand how awesome an accomplishment winning even one Super Bowl is. Going only three years between not just appearances, but wins, is %@*( amazing! You simply don't get it.

BTW, one of those "unsuccessful" seasons enabled the Gnats to draft Hakeem Nicks and another one Jason Pierre-Paul, so there was a silver lining to that supposed lack of success.

how would you undersatnd how "awesome of an accomplishment" it is to win a SB?

I get that 3 seasons w/ 1 playoff app and 2 times missing would be cause for celebration in orchard Park but for a team coming off a SB that is not a success.

SpurzN703
06-26-2012, 11:19 AM
I assumed you were talking more years, the last 3 years it's easier- how in the world can you say SD has been better?

2009-2011 playoff apps:

NE 3
Bal 3
NYJ 2
Pitt 2
Ind 2
Cin 2
Den 1
SD 1
KC 1
Hou 1

playoff wins:

NYJ 4
Bal 3
NE 2
Ind 2
Pit 2
Hou 1

title game apps:

NYJ 2
NE 1
Bal 1
Ind 1
Pit 1

AFC Champs:
NE 1
Ind 1
Pit 1


let's say 2 pts for playoff app, 3 for WC win, 4 for div rd win, 5 for title game win

NYJ 18
Bal 16
NE 15
Pit 13
Ind 13
Hou 5
Cin 4
SD 2
KC 2

Let's say 50 points for a SB appearance and 100 for a win. Guess who has the most points then on your 8th grade Mr. Popularity scale?

nyjunc
06-26-2012, 11:26 AM
Let's say 50 points for a SB appearance and 100 for a win. Guess who has the most points then on your 8th grade Mr. Popularity scale?

we'd have to adjust the other points. The jets played better teams in their title game runs than NE did in their SB run- that has to factor into it to.

No matter what way you slice it the jets have been an elite team the last 3 years.

DisturbedShifty
06-26-2012, 11:29 AM
Let's say 50 points for a SB appearance and 100 for a win. Guess who has the most points then on your 8th grade Mr. Popularity scale?

Agreed. Not sure how a wild card win would be worth three points. Considering most wild card teams if they win the first game usually don't make it past the next round. And i am basing that on the overall time the wild card spot has been around, nit just a narrowed timeline.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

nyjunc
06-26-2012, 11:38 AM
Agreed. Not sure how a wild card win would be worth three points. Considering most wild card teams if they win the first game usually don't make it past the next round. And i am basing that on the overall time the wild card spot has been around, nit just a narrowed timeline.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

the last 2 SB champs played in the WC round

and wouldn't winning a WC game on the road, div rd game on the road be worth more than winning a home game? wouldn't beating NE head to head in a div rd game on the road give us bonus points? No matter what way you slice it the Jets have been an elite team the last 3 years.

SpurzN703
06-26-2012, 11:47 AM
we'd have to adjust the other points. The jets played better teams in their title game runs than NE did in their SB run- that has to factor into it to.

No matter what way you slice it the jets have been an elite team the last 3 years.

You're only using this "points" system b/c the Jets are on there. They are not elite. They've never been elite. It isn't possible to be elite when you aren't good enough to play in the one game that determines the league champion.

---------- Post added at 11:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------


the last 2 SB champs played in the WC round

and wouldn't winning a WC game on the road, div rd game on the road be worth more than winning a home game? wouldn't beating NE head to head in a div rd game on the road give us bonus points? No matter what way you slice it the Jets have been an elite team the last 3 years.

Say the Jets didn't do anything in 2009 and 2010, would your magical points system even exist then? You'll do anything to give credit to your team. You just make it with all sorts of ridiculous ways to "prove" it.

DisturbedShifty
06-26-2012, 11:48 AM
the last 2 SB champs played in the WC round

and wouldn't winning a WC game on the road, div rd game on the road be worth more than winning a home game? wouldn't beating NE head to head in a div rd game on the road give us bonus points? No matter what way you slice it the Jets have been an elite team the last 3 years.
See! That just proves what Phinz said. Your "grading scale" was catered to make the Jets look better.

No the points should start low and increase as the team progresses no matter where it is played. And again, if you read my post I stated overall time the wild card spot has been around. No narrowed timeline. Because the wild card teams advancing that far into the playoffs, on a regular basis, is a recent occurrence. I am pretty sure wild card teams, on average (if not bounced in the first round), are knocked out in the second round.


Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

nyjunc
06-26-2012, 12:01 PM
You're only using this "points" system b/c the Jets are on there. They are not elite. They've never been elite. It isn't possible to be elite when you aren't good enough to play in the one game that determines the league champion.

---------- Post added at 11:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 AM ----------



Say the Jets didn't do anything in 2009 and 2010, would your magical points system even exist then? You'll do anything to give credit to your team. You just make it with all sorts of ridiculous ways to "prove" it.

You can use any formula you want, the jets are an elite team the last 3 seasons.

we are discussing 2009-2011, it's only 3 years. I made up the pts system to illustrate a point- no matter what way you slice it the jets are an elite team under rex.


See! That just proves what Phinz said. Your "grading scale" was catered to make the Jets look better.

No the points should start low and increase as the team progresses no matter where it is played. And again, if you read my post I stated overall time the wild card spot has been around. No narrowed timeline. Because the wild card teams advancing that far into the playoffs, on a regular basis, is a recent occurrence. I am pretty sure wild card teams, on average (if not bounced in the first round), are knocked out in the second round.


Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

How did I cater? I gave later rounds more points, it's not my fault NE only won 2 playoff games in 3 years.

I didn't change the points based on where the games were played but I should have. It should mean more that Pitt beat us and that we beat NE.

If WC teams on average are bounced the next week isn't that more of a compliment to the Jets who 2 straight years made the title game as a WC team? Thank you for the compliment.

No worries about spelling, I am guilty of typos often.

SpurzN703
06-26-2012, 12:50 PM
You can use any formula you want, the jets are an elite team the last 3 seasons.

we are discussing 2009-2011, it's only 3 years. I made up the pts system to illustrate a point- no matter what way you slice it the jets are an elite team under rex.

The only formula that exists is winning the Super Bowl makes you a champion. A non-champion team cannot be elite. Ever.

nyjunc
06-26-2012, 01:01 PM
The only formula that exists is winning the Super Bowl makes you a champion. A non-champion team cannot be elite. Ever.

but a QB w/ zero elite full season can be elite. Got it.

SpurzN703
06-26-2012, 01:26 PM
but a QB w/ zero elite full season can be elite. Got it.

2 rings. Enough said. The evil NFL gave him the SB MVPs. Shame on them.

nyjunc
06-26-2012, 01:32 PM
2 rings. Enough said. The evil NFL gave him the SB MVPs. Shame on them.

Brandon jacobs has 2 rings, he must be elite, same w/ Ahmad Bradshaw

Did you know Larry Brown has THREE rings and a SB MVP, he must be going to the Hall of Fame! he also has something else in common w/ Eli- ZERO all pro selections

SpurzN703
06-26-2012, 01:49 PM
Brandon jacobs has 2 rings, he must be elite, same w/ Ahmad Bradshaw

Did you know Larry Brown has THREE rings and a SB MVP, he must be going to the Hall of Fame! he also has something else in common w/ Eli- ZERO all pro selections

Stick to the topic here pal. We're speaking about a QB, not the players you mentioned to distract me.

nyjunc
06-26-2012, 01:57 PM
Stick to the topic here pal. We're speaking about a QB, not the players you mentioned to distract me.

I'm on topic, you claim 2 Sbs makes a player elite even though that player doesn't have a single elite season under his belt.

As of now Eli is this generations Jim Plunkett. A solid QB you can win w/ but not one who is a top QB. Both took a long time to get it, both won SBs as a wild ard team and both won 2 SBs in a relatively short amount of time. Until Eli can consistently play at an elite level he will not be an elite QB.

Bingit
06-26-2012, 02:17 PM
Brandon jacobs has 2 rings, he must be elite, same w/ Ahmad Bradshaw

Did you know Larry Brown has THREE rings and a SB MVP, he must be going to the Hall of Fame! he also has something else in common w/ Eli- ZERO all pro selections

None of those guys were as big a part of winning those SBs as Eli was. Eli was clutch! Period! Did the D play great? Sure! But when it came down to the last few minutes of BOTH SBs, the Giants were down and Eli made the plays that won the games. That is enough to make him elite.

nyjunc
06-26-2012, 02:57 PM
None of those guys were as big a part of winning those SBs as Eli was. Eli was clutch! Period! Did the D play great? Sure! But when it came down to the last few minutes of BOTH SBs, the Giants were down and Eli made the plays that won the games. That is enough to make him elite.

Justic Tuck was, he and the D were the main reasons they won. Eli was very fortunate in the first one w/ Samuel dropping the easy pick then having a ball stick to a helmet. Eli was much better this past SB but again he still doesn't have an elite full season under his belt. When he starts doing that consistently I'll consider him elite.

SpurzN703
06-26-2012, 03:30 PM
I'm on topic, you claim 2 Sbs makes a player elite even though that player doesn't have a single elite season under his belt.

I claim 2 Super Bowl wins and 2 Super Bowl MVPs make Eli Manning elite. I didn't claim anything other than that.


As of now Eli is this generations Jim Plunkett. A solid QB you can win w/ but not one who is a top QB. Both took a long time to get it, both won SBs as a wild ard team and both won 2 SBs in a relatively short amount of time. Until Eli can consistently play at an elite level he will not be an elite QB

No. Plunkett's stats were far worse than Manning's are. Manning still can play another 8-10 years. I'm sure his stats will dwarf Plunkett's when all is said and done.

---------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 PM ----------


Justic Tuck was, he and the D were the main reasons they won. Eli was very fortunate in the first one w/ Samuel dropping the easy pick then having a ball stick to a helmet. Eli was much better this past SB but again he still doesn't have an elite full season under his belt. When he starts doing that consistently I'll consider him elite.

He's good in the Super Bowl but not so much in the regular season to you and this is what makes him not elite? That he's better in the Super Bowl than the regular season? Can you get any more incorrect?

SpurzN703
06-26-2012, 03:32 PM
Brandon jacobs has 2 rings, he must be elite, same w/ Ahmad Bradshaw

Did you know Larry Brown has THREE rings and a SB MVP, he must be going to the Hall of Fame! he also has something else in common w/ Eli- ZERO all pro selections

If Brandon Jacobs, Ahmad Bradshaw, or anyone on the Giants roster who was not Eli Manning proceeded to win two Super Bowl MVPs while a member of the Giants, how can they possibly not be elite?

The fact that you don't pay attention to full sentences makes you an unreasonable person to discuss information with.

nyjunc
06-26-2012, 04:00 PM
I claim 2 Super Bowl wins and 2 Super Bowl MVPs make Eli Manning elite. I didn't claim anything other than that.



No. Plunkett's stats were far worse than Manning's are. Manning still can play another 8-10 years. I'm sure his stats will dwarf Plunkett's when all is said and done.

---------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 PM ----------



He's good in the Super Bowl but not so much in the regular season to you and this is what makes him not elite? That he's better in the Super Bowl than the regular season? Can you get any more incorrect?

So b/c a ball stuck to a helmet Eli is elite?

Plunkett played in a completely different era, you cannot compare their #s.

Plunkett was 9-2 in postseason, Eli 8-3

yeah, 16 games tell me more than 1 game. It's not like he put up 40 pts in those Sbs either, he led his O to 17 and 19 pts. he needs to do all season not just in one game.


If Brandon Jacobs, Ahmad Bradshaw, or anyone on the Giants roster who was not Eli Manning proceeded to win two Super Bowl MVPs while a member of the Giants, how can they possibly not be elite?

The fact that you don't pay attention to full sentences makes you an unreasonable person to discuss information with.

he didn't deserve either and that's ONE game in 2 different seasons, you need to play at that level consistently. he has not done that.

All you can point to are the SB MVPs, you have yet to show me any other reasons. That alone should tell you he's not elite.

SpurzN703
06-26-2012, 04:16 PM
So b/c a ball stuck to a helmet Eli is elite?

Plunkett played in a completely different era, you cannot compare their #s. Plunkett was 9-2 in postseason, Eli 8-3. yeah, 16 games tell me more than 1 game. It's not like he put up 40 pts in those Sbs either, he led his O to 17 and 19 pts. he needs to do all season not just in one game.

Enough about Plunkett. A QB in the 80s is your argument? Classy




he didn't deserve either and that's ONE game in 2 different seasons, you need to play at that level consistently. he has not done that.

Coincidentally that ONE game is the game your elite Jets haven't been playing in over these last 3 elite years and 40+ overall


All you can point to are the SB MVPs, you have yet to show me any other reasons. That alone should tell you he's not elite.

There don't need to be any other reasons. You think his MVPs are rigged bull****. There's nothing else to be said about it.

nyjunc
06-27-2012, 09:36 AM
Enough about Plunkett. A QB in the 80s is your argument? Classy





Coincidentally that ONE game is the game your elite Jets haven't been playing in over these last 3 elite years and 40+ overall



There don't need to be any other reasons. You think his MVPs are rigged bull****. There's nothing else to be said about it.

why enough about Plunkett? b/c it pokes holes in your theory? he's very similar to Eli but was never elite just like eli isn't. if this was 1984 you'd be telling me he's elite.


He had a ball stick to a helmet and had his D slow down great offenses so he only had to score 17 & 19 pts. Good for him.


If all he has are the SB MVps then he's clearly not elite. Steps up in big games like a Robert Horry hitting a big shot but not elite.

Kinzua
06-27-2012, 09:46 AM
we'd have to adjust the other points. The jets played better teams in their title game runs than NE did in their SB run- that has to factor into it to.

No matter what way you slice it the jets have been an elite team the last 3 years.

The Jests did NOT even make the playoffs every year of the last three years.
The Jests did NOT win their division even once in the last three years.
The Jests did NOT even get to the Super Bowl once in the last three years.

They are NOT elite. A team cannot be elite if they can't even get to the big show. DOH!

nyjunc
06-27-2012, 09:56 AM
The Jests did NOT even make the playoffs every year of the last three years.
The Jests did NOT win their division even once in the last three years.
The Jests did NOT even get to the Super Bowl once in the last three years.

They are NOT elite. A team cannot be elite if they can't even get to the big show. DOH!

they won the MOST playoff games! they were the ONLY team int he league to reach 2 conf title games

teams an be elite if they don't make the SB, elite teams are the best in the game. The elite teams over the past 3 years are(in no particular order):

NO
NYJ
NE
Bal
Pit
NYG
GB

JETSJETSJETS
06-27-2012, 12:47 PM
Eli discussions remind of LTs statement the other day when asked if he preferred HoF bust or a SB ring. Obviously, you want a SB ring, but if you had the option to pick EITHER one, most would pick HoF bust IMO. David Carr has a SB ring, but he doesn't have Millions of dollars, and doesn't have the reputation LT had. In fact, Carr will always be remembered as a bust, yet he has a SB ring. Sure he didn't start, but SB rings are overrated when discussing a players talent. However, having a SB ring AND a league MVP award changes all that.

Point is, you don't have to be elite to have two SB rings (Eli). You don't have to have SB rings to be considered elite (Marino).

SpurzN703
06-27-2012, 02:47 PM
why enough about Plunkett? b/c it pokes holes in your theory? he's very similar to Eli but was never elite just like eli isn't. if this was 1984 you'd be telling me he's elite.

You can only wish it pokes holes in my theory.

Eli Manning already has more TDs in 8 seasons than Plunkett had in his 15 year career. Manning already has more passes completed, more passes attempted, more passing yards, a better completion %, and a better "rating".

The two are nothing alike aside from having 2 Super Bowl rings each 30 years apart. More than your and I's franchises put together.

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------


they won the MOST playoff games! they were the ONLY team int he league to reach 2 conf title games

teams an be elite if they don't make the SB, elite teams are the best in the game. The elite teams over the past 3 years are(in no particular order):

NO
NYJ
NE
Bal
Pit
NYG
GB

And yet again, what is the one team in your list that hasn't been to the Super Bowl in the last 40 years? :chuckle:

---------- Post added at 02:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------


Eli discussions remind of LTs statement the other day when asked if he preferred HoF bust or a SB ring. Obviously, you want a SB ring, but if you had the option to pick EITHER one, most would pick HoF bust IMO. David Carr has a SB ring, but he doesn't have Millions of dollars, and doesn't have the reputation LT had. In fact, Carr will always be remembered as a bust, yet he has a SB ring. Sure he didn't start, but SB rings are overrated when discussing a players talent. However, having a SB ring AND a league MVP award changes all that.

Point is, you don't have to be elite to have two SB rings (Eli). You don't have to have SB rings to be considered elite (Marino).

Marino was elite b/c he owned almost all passing records during and after his career. Not every QB can say they did that. David Carr doesn't even need to be mentioned here b/c it isn't worth our time.

nyjunc
06-27-2012, 03:20 PM
You can only wish it pokes holes in my theory.

Eli Manning already has more TDs in 8 seasons than Plunkett had in his 15 year career. Manning already has more passes completed, more passes attempted, more passing yards, a better completion %, and a better "rating".

The two are nothing alike aside from having 2 Super Bowl rings each 30 years apart. More than your and I's franchises put together.

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------



And yet again, what is the one team in your list that hasn't been to the Super Bowl in the last 40 years? :chuckle:

---------- Post added at 02:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------



Marino was elite b/c he owned almost all passing records during and after his career. Not every QB can say they did that. David Carr doesn't even need to be mentioned here b/c it isn't worth our time.

The fact that you are comparing individual #s from a QB from the 70s and early 80s to a QB of today tells me all I need to know.

what does the last 40 years have to do w/ the last 3 years?

Bingit
06-27-2012, 03:22 PM
Eli discussions remind of LTs statement the other day when asked if he preferred HoF bust or a SB ring. Obviously, you want a SB ring, but if you had the option to pick EITHER one, most would pick HoF bust IMO. David Carr has a SB ring, but he doesn't have Millions of dollars, and doesn't have the reputation LT had. In fact, Carr will always be remembered as a bust, yet he has a SB ring. Sure he didn't start, but SB rings are overrated when discussing a players talent. However, having a SB ring AND a league MVP award changes all that.

Point is, you don't have to be elite to have two SB rings (Eli). You don't have to have SB rings to be considered elite (Marino).

Having a SB ring as a backup when you had nothing to do with it is meaningless. When you are the guy who led TWO 4th quarter, game winning drives in SBS it means a lot. I'll take 2 SB MVPs over a league MVP any day of the week.

nyjunc
06-27-2012, 03:46 PM
Having a SB ring as a backup when you had nothing to do with it is meaningless. When you are the guy who led TWO 4th quarter, game winning drives in SBS it means a lot. I'll take 2 SB MVPs over a league MVP any day of the week.

any player can win a SB MVP award by playing one great game but you need excellence over the course of a full season to win a league MVP award.

SpurzN703
06-27-2012, 03:59 PM
The fact that you are comparing individual #s from a QB from the 70s and early 80s to a QB of today tells me all I need to know.

Are you ****ing kidding me? You're the one who brought Plunkett up in the first place and now it isn't fair to compare them to each other especially after you say:


why enough about Plunkett? b/c it pokes holes in your theory? he's very similar to Eli but was never elite just like eli isn't

Are you this blindly biased?

---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------


any player can win a SB MVP award by playing one great game but you need excellence over the course of a full season to win a league MVP award.

Explains why no one in the Jets organization has done so in our lifetime. You know, it being so easy and casual to accomplish and all.

nyjunc
06-27-2012, 04:08 PM
Are you ****ing kidding me? You're the one who brought Plunkett up in the first place and now it isn't fair to compare them to each other especially after you say:



Are you this blindly biased?

---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------



Explains why no one in the Jets organization has done so in our lifetime. You know, it being so easy and casual to accomplish and all.

It's not fair to compare stats, 2 totally different eras. Both are similar QBs, #1 overall picks, struggled early, helped teams win 2 Sbs in short amount of time, won SB MVPs, neither made an all pro team.

It's easier to win a SB MVP, again one great game can get you that award but you need greatness throughout 16 to win a league MVP.

Doug Williams(and if he didn't win it Timmy Smith would have won that one), Larry Brown, Desmond Howard, Dexter jackson, Deion Branch, Eli Manning. None of these players were/are great players, they happened to have great games or make big plays in the SB. The award does skew towards QBs which is why Doug and Eli won their SB MVP awards but Eli is as elite as those other players were- elite for a day.

The New Guy
06-27-2012, 04:16 PM
Justic Tuck was, he and the D were the main reasons they won. Eli was very fortunate in the first one w/ Samuel dropping the easy pick then having a ball stick to a helmet. Eli was much better this past SB but again he still doesn't have an elite full season under his belt. When he starts doing that consistently I'll consider him elite.


I'm not going to get into the "Eli is or isn't elite" discussion, but I have a problem with the highlighted statement. I remember us talking about Brady in his first SB win and debating who played the biggest role in the win. I told you that I thought that the D was the main reason for the win. They held the Rams to just 17 points (The D also scored a TD) making it to where the Pats O just needed to score 11 points to win the game. You claimed that the D collapsed in the 4th quarter and allowed 14 points which allowed the Rams to tie the game. We all know Brady led Ne into FG range and NE won the game. You claimed that Brady was the main reason for that win.

So, how can the Giants D be the main reason for the win when they held their opponent to 17 points (no defensive scores) and needed Eli to lead the game winning drive, but Brady is the main reason for the win when NEs D held their opponent to 17 points (scored a TD on D) and Brady did less to put them in FG range than Eli did when the Giants scored a TD. :idk:

Bingit
06-27-2012, 04:23 PM
any player can win a SB MVP award by playing one great game but you need excellence over the course of a full season to win a league MVP award.

It wasn't just 1 game. Eli has TWO SB MVPs. He led the Giants on TWO game winning drives in the 4th quarter to win SBs. Enough Said!

nyjunc
06-27-2012, 04:40 PM
I'm not going to get into the "Eli is or isn't elite" discussion, but I have a problem with the highlighted statement. I remember us talking about Brady in his first SB win and debating who played the biggest role in the win. I told you that I thought that the D was the main reason for the win. They held the Rams to just 17 points (The D also scored a TD) making it to where the Pats O just needed to score 11 points to win the game. You claimed that the D collapsed in the 4th quarter and allowed 14 points which allowed the Rams to tie the game. We all know Brady led Ne into FG range and NE won the game. You claimed that Brady was the main reason for that win.

So, how can the Giants D be the main reason for the win when they held their opponent to 17 points (no defensive scores) and needed Eli to lead the game winning drive, but Brady is the main reason for the win when NEs D held their opponent to 17 points (scored a TD on D) and Brady did less to put them in FG range than Eli did when the Giants scored a TD. :idk:

The NE D blew a 14 pt lead in the 4th qtr for the first and ONLY time in history. I always gave NE's D credit for keeping them in that game but when it was winning time they folded- did the Giants D blow a huge 4th qtr lead in either SB?

As great as Eli's drives were they weren't close to Brady's in that SB b/c he got the ball at his 17 w/ NO timeouts. Time was not a factor in Eli's drives.

---------- Post added at 04:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 PM ----------


It wasn't just 1 game. Eli has TWO SB MVPs. He led the Giants on TWO game winning drives in the 4th quarter to win SBs. Enough Said!

He did, he had a ball stick to a helmet before hitting a wide open Plax to win the first one. He doesn't have a single elite full season- how can he be considered elite? Great job in postseason, I'd take him in a big game over almost any QB in the game but to be elite you must be great a majority of the time, he has rarely been great.

SpurzN703
06-27-2012, 04:52 PM
It's not fair to compare stats, 2 totally different eras. Both are similar QBs, #1 overall picks, struggled early, helped teams win 2 Sbs in short amount of time, won SB MVPs, neither made an all pro team.

So it isn't fair to compare stats but it's fair to compare everything else which you think supports your claim he isn't elite. Of course.


It's easier to win a SB MVP, again one great game can get you that award but you need greatness throughout 16 to win a league MVP.

Either way you're good


Doug Williams(and if he didn't win it Timmy Smith would have won that one), Larry Brown, Desmond Howard, Dexter jackson, Deion Branch, Eli Manning. None of these players were/are great players, they happened to have great games or make big plays in the SB. The award does skew towards QBs which is why Doug and Eli won their SB MVP awards but Eli is as elite as those other players were- elite for a day.

Did any of those players win two Super Bowl MVPs?

The New Guy
06-27-2012, 06:51 PM
The NE D blew a 14 pt lead in the 4th qtr for the first and ONLY time in history. I always gave NE's D credit for keeping them in that game but when it was winning time they folded- did the Giants D blow a huge 4th qtr lead in either SB?

As great as Eli's drives were they weren't close to Brady's in that SB b/c he got the ball at his 17 w/ NO timeouts. Time was not a factor in Eli's drives.




The NE D blew a 4th quarter lead because they had very little help from Brady. He had 145 passing yards the entire game. I really don't care when the opponent scores their points. 1st quarter, 3rd quarter, 4th quarter, it doesn't matter. All that matters is the point total. You can complain about 14 4th quarter points, but the D held the Rams to just 3 points through 3 quarters and scored a TD. If Brady and the O could have scored more than 10 points, they still would have had a lead. The D only allowed a total of 17 points the entire game, and scored a TD. You can't ask for anything more against an O like the Rams.

The Giants were up 9-0 after 1 quarter before NE scored 17 unanswered points in the 2nd and 3 quarters. How is that better than allowing 14 points in the 4th when you held them to just 3 for the other 3 quarters? The point total is the same. The only difference is NE's D scored a TD while the Giants D scored a safety. The Giants D played great, but I give Eli more credit than I give Brady for what he did throughout the game. Brady had just 145 passing yards the entire game. That is only 12 more yards than they got on the ground. He missed 11 passes on 27 attempts. On top of that, the D spotted him 7 points. Eli threw for 296 yards while the team ran for 114 yards. Eli missed 10 passes on 40 attempts.

Brady had less time on his game winning drive, but the game was tied. If he doesn't get in FG range, the game goes to overtime. Eli's team was losing and they started on their own 12 with 3:39 and 1 timeout.

I don't know how you can say Brady (145 passing yards) is the main reason NE won when the D held the Rams to 17 points and scored 7, and then turn around with a straight face and say the Giants D is the main reason they won when they held NE to 17 points and scored 2 points when Eli throws for 296 yards. It's just crazy. :lol:

nyjunc
06-28-2012, 08:16 AM
So it isn't fair to compare stats but it's fair to compare everything else which you think supports your claim he isn't elite. Of course.



Either way you're good



Did any of those players win two Super Bowl MVPs?

I think you know this game well enough to know you can't compare QB stats of today to QB stats of the 70s and early 80s. We all know how grat dan was, he only threw for 30 or more TDs FOUR times in his 17 year career and 2 of them were exactly 30. Drew Brees in 10 years has 4 30+ TD seasons, Brees also has a 65.9 comp % while Marino had a 59.4, Brees threw less INts per year and he's won a SB so that must mean Brees is better, right? Do you see how silly it is to compare players of different eras? and Dan nearly played in Drew's era, Plunkett was retired was retired almost 20 years before Eli took an NFL snap.

Nope and none of those players had D's shut down all time great offenses or balls stick to helmets either.


The NE D blew a 4th quarter lead because they had very little help from Brady. He had 145 passing yards the entire game. I really don't care when the opponent scores their points. 1st quarter, 3rd quarter, 4th quarter, it doesn't matter. All that matters is the point total. You can complain about 14 4th quarter points, but the D held the Rams to just 3 points through 3 quarters and scored a TD. If Brady and the O could have scored more than 10 points, they still would have had a lead. The D only allowed a total of 17 points the entire game, and scored a TD. You can't ask for anything more against an O like the Rams.

The Giants were up 9-0 after 1 quarter before NE scored 17 unanswered points in the 2nd and 3 quarters. How is that better than allowing 14 points in the 4th when you held them to just 3 for the other 3 quarters? The point total is the same. The only difference is NE's D scored a TD while the Giants D scored a safety. The Giants D played great, but I give Eli more credit than I give Brady for what he did throughout the game. Brady had just 145 passing yards the entire game. That is only 12 more yards than they got on the ground. He missed 11 passes on 27 attempts. On top of that, the D spotted him 7 points. Eli threw for 296 yards while the team ran for 114 yards. Eli missed 10 passes on 40 attempts.

Brady had less time on his game winning drive, but the game was tied. If he doesn't get in FG range, the game goes to overtime. Eli's team was losing and they started on their own 12 with 3:39 and 1 timeout.

I don't know how you can say Brady (145 passing yards) is the main reason NE won when the D held the Rams to 17 points and scored 7, and then turn around with a straight face and say the Giants D is the main reason they won when they held NE to 17 points and scored 2 points when Eli throws for 296 yards. It's just crazy. :lol:

so it was the fault of the offense why the D blew a historic 4thg qt lead? was the O turning it over and putting the D in bad spots? SL got the ball at their 23 for their first TD, the next one after a poor punt they got it on their 45 so they had good FP but they got it w/ 1:51 to play and 3 plays and 21 seconds later the game was tied. Clearly the fault of the offense.:lol2:

The Giant D held down the pats Os, where were all the points by the Giant O? if they scored more they don't need late game drives- it works both ways.

The Gianst were up 9-0 b/c the DEFENSE got a safety to put them up 2-0 and gave the Giants the ball right back after they had just punted.

so you think allowing 17 pts over the 2nd and 3rd qtrs and not allowing a point in the 1st and 4th is worse than allowing 14 4th qtr pts to blow a 14 pt lead? Something never done before or since. really?

If that game gets to OT and SL wisn the toss they are winning the SB, Brady had more pressure than any QB b/c he was a 1st year starter and had no timeouts while SL had all the momentum having just tied the game.

who cares about pass yds? Warner had 365 in that SB loss to NE.

I never said Brady uis the main reason they won, I said Brady and the O rescued the D from a historic collapse. The D played great for 3 qtrs, the O didn't turn it over and give SL short fields but the O helped them get a 14-3 lead and when the game was on the line after the D blew a 14 pt lead the O came through to win it.

DisturbedShifty
06-28-2012, 09:02 AM
I really wish we had a resident Patriots troll.

nyjunc
06-28-2012, 09:20 AM
I really wish we had a resident Patriots troll.

stop w/ the troll stuff, I'm more knowledgable than 90% of the board and I don't just accept the homer views spewed at me.

DisturbedShifty
06-28-2012, 10:03 AM
stop w/ the troll stuff, I'm more knowledgable than 90% of the board and I don't just accept the homer views spewed at me.

Who called you a troll? I sure as a **** didn't. It was a generalization. It wasn't directed at you or anybody. The point was that we need a Pats fan in here to defend the Patriots. Especially against your "elite" opinions.

And you being 90% more knowledgeable than he rest of this board is pure opinion as well.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

SpurzN703
06-28-2012, 10:41 AM
I think you know this game well enough to know you can't compare QB stats of today to QB stats of the 70s and early 80s.

Yes, I need to meet you in person and have you teach me all things NFL b/c I'm a dunce regarding NFL knowledge. The funny thing is you mentioning Plunkett in the first place. You can't compare stats between Plunkett and Manning but it's fair to compare their careers? If their stats can't be compared b/c of different eras, it makes no sense that they can be compared in any way no matter what the subject.


We all know how grat dan was, he only threw for 30 or more TDs FOUR times in his 17 year career and 2 of them were exactly 30.

I don't understand why you nitpick about him throwing for 30 TDs in a year just four times. Why isn't his total career production the number we're focusing on?


Drew Brees in 10 years has 4 30+ TD seasons, Brees also has a 65.9 comp % while Marino had a 59.4, Brees threw less INts per year and he's won a SB so that must mean Brees is better, right? Do you see how silly it is to compare players of different eras? and Dan nearly played in Drew's era, Plunkett was retired was retired almost 20 years before Eli took an NFL snap.

Drew Brees has the potential to match or surpass Dan's stats if he plays another 5-7 years. If the two players stats are similar, I think it's fair to compare them.

---------- Post added at 10:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 AM ----------


Who called you a troll? I sure as a **** didn't. It was a generalization. It wasn't directed at you or anybody. The point was that we need a Pats fan in here to defend the Patriots. Especially against your "elite" opinions.

And you being 90% more knowledgeable than he rest of this board is pure opinion as well.

Forgive my spelling. This was sent from my phone.

I agree. We've had some Pats fan here and there but none of them are regulars. It would make the discussion a bit more balanced.

nyjunc
06-28-2012, 12:17 PM
Yes, I need to meet you in person and have you teach me all things NFL b/c I'm a dunce regarding NFL knowledge. The funny thing is you mentioning Plunkett in the first place. You can't compare stats between Plunkett and Manning but it's fair to compare their careers? If their stats can't be compared b/c of different eras, it makes no sense that they can be compared in any way no matter what the subject.



I don't understand why you nitpick about him throwing for 30 TDs in a year just four times. Why isn't his total career production the number we're focusing on?



Drew Brees has the potential to match or surpass Dan's stats if he plays another 5-7 years. If the two players stats are similar, I think it's fair to compare them.

---------- Post added at 10:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 AM ----------



I agree. We've had some Pats fan here and there but none of them are regulars. It would make the discussion a bit more balanced.

I mentioned Plunkett in the first place b/c he is a perfect comparison to Eli, 2 time SB champ, SB MVP but never an elite QB.

You can't compare strict #s, you can compare how they do against their peers.

Eli has been a starter for 7 full seasons, Plunkett was one for 9 full seasons:

Top 10 in pass yds: Plunkett 5, Eli 4
Top 10 in pass TDs: Plunkett 3, Eli 6
Top 10 in rating: Plunkett 2, Eli 1
Top 10 INTs(top 10 is bad): Plunkett 7, Eli 5
top 10 in comp %: plunkett 1, Eli 1

VERY similar. #1 overall picks, struggled early, won 2 SBs in relatively short span, won SB MVPs- NOT elite.

I'm not nitpicking, I'm illustrating the difference in eras. I KNOW Marino is a top 5 all time QB, I KNOW he was much better than Brees- #s don't tell us that.

SpurzN703
06-28-2012, 12:42 PM
I mentioned Plunkett in the first place b/c he is a perfect comparison to Eli, 2 time SB champ, SB MVP but never an elite QB.

You can't compare strict #s, you can compare how they do against their peers.

So he's a perfect comparison yet you can't compare what you call strict numbers. Strict numbers which happen to be the common stats with how you can judge a player. You also say you can't compare players from two different era but now you can compare how they did against their peers......who are all from the two different eras.

This is illogical.

The New Guy
06-28-2012, 05:10 PM
so it was the fault of the offense why the D blew a historic 4thg qt lead? was the O turning it over and putting the D in bad spots? SL got the ball at their 23 for their first TD, the next one after a poor punt they got it on their 45 so they had good FP but they got it w/ 1:51 to play and 3 plays and 21 seconds later the game was tied. Clearly the fault of the offense.:lol2:

Yes, it is the O's fault for not scoring more points. The O scored just 10 points which isn't going to cut it in most games, let alone against a high powered Rams O. They are lucky they were still tied thanks to the D holding the Rams to just 3 points through 3 quarters and scoring a defensive TD.



The Giant D held down the pats Os, where were all the points by the Giant O? if they scored more they don't need late game drives- it works both ways.

I'm not blaming the Giants D for losing a lead like you are blaming the Pats D. The Giants scored 7 in the 1st quarter before the Pats scored 17 unanswered on their 2nd, 4th and 5th possessions, so it is a little different. The Pats held the Rams to just 3 points after 9 possessions, so the O had plenty of time to build a larger lead. I'm not blaming the Pats D for losing a lead even when they gave up 14 4th quarter points because they held the other team to a total of 17 and scored a TD. It is the O's fault for not putting up more than 10 points.



The Gianst were up 9-0 b/c the DEFENSE got a safety to put them up 2-0 and gave the Giants the ball right back after they had just punted.

The Giants got the ball back on their own 22 after the safety and scored the TD. The Safety punt did not result in good FP for the Giants.

It just boggles my mind how you give the Giants D more credit than you give the Pats D credit. The Pats were up 17-3 becasue the D scored a TD on an INT return. After that, they recovered a fumble and returned it to the Rams 40 which led to another TD. After that, they intercepted another pass and returned it to Rams 33 (which resulted in a FG) Every score for the Pats (before the game winning drive) was in large part because of the D. More than the Giants D who you say played a bigger role in the win than Eli.



so you think allowing 17 pts over the 2nd and 3rd qtrs and not allowing a point in the 1st and 4th is worse than allowing 14 4th qtr pts to blow a 14 pt lead? Something never done before or since. really?

No, I don't think it is worse. It was a great performance by the Giants D, just like it was a great performance by NE's D. You are the one who thinks the Pats D was worse because of when the points came (14 in the 4th). I don't care when the points come. The point total is what is most important. The Giants allowed 17 points. The Pats allowed 17 points. The Giants D scored a safety. The Pats D scored a TD.



who cares about pass yds? Warner had 365 in that SB loss to NE.

I thought we were talking about who played a bigger role in the win. You said the Giants D was more of the reason for the Giants win than Eli was, yet said Brady was more of a reason for the win than the Pats D was. The Pats D had the better game since they allowed the same amount of points as the Giants, but scored a TD instead of a safety.

For your statement to hold any water, Brady would have to have had a much better game than Eli did. Both threw for 1 TD and no Ints, so this is where the passing yards come in. Brady threw for just 145 yards while Eli threw for 297.




I never said Brady uis the main reason they won, I said Brady and the O rescued the D from a historic collapse. The D played great for 3 qtrs, the O didn't turn it over and give SL short fields but the O helped them get a 14-3 lead and when the game was on the line after the D blew a 14 pt lead the O came through to win it.


You claimed Brady was more of a reason for the win against the Rams than the Pats D was. You then said that Justin Tuck and the Giants D was more of a reason for the Giants win against the Pats than Eli was. It is a total contradiction. Especially when Eli out played Brady and the Pats D outplayed the Giants D. You can keep saying they gave up 14 points in the 4th, but they held them to 17 total points and scored a TD on D. That is better than holding a team to 17 points and scoring a safety on D.

nyjunc
06-28-2012, 05:37 PM
Yes, it is the O's fault for not scoring more points. The O scored just 10 points which isn't going to cut it in most games, let alone against a high powered Rams O. They are lucky they were still tied thanks to the D holding the Rams to just 3 points through 3 quarters and scoring a defensive TD.



They scored 7 in the 1st quarter before the Pats scored 17 unanswered on their 2nd, 4th and 5th possessions, so it is a little different than a team holding the other team to just 3 points for 3 quarters, but I pretty much agree. Had Eli thrown for just 145 yards and had the Giants scored a TD on D instead of a safety, I would say the D was more of a reason for the win than Eli. But that is not the case.



The Giants got the ball back on their own 22 after the safety and scored the TD. The Safety punt did not result in good FP for the Giants.

It just boggles my mind how you give the Giants D more credit than you give the Pats D credit. The Pats were up 17-3 becasue the D scored a TD on an INT return. After that, they recovered a fumble and returned it to the Rams 40 which led to another TD. After that, they intercepted another pass and returned it to Rams 33 (which resulted in a FG) Every score for the Pats (before the game winning drive) was in large part because of the D. More than the Giants D who you say played a bigger role in the win than Eli.



No, I don't think it is worse. It was a great performance by the Giants D, just like it was a great performance by NE's D. You are the one who thinks the Pats D was worse because of when the points came (14 in the 4th). I don't care when the points come. The point total is what is most important. The Giants allowed 17 points. The Pats allowed 17 points. The Giants D scored a safety. The Pats D scored a TD.



I thought we were talking about who played a bigger role in the win. You said the Giants D was more of the reason for the Giants win than Eli was, yet said Brady was more of a reason for the win than the Pats D was. The Pats D had the better game since they allowed the same amount of points as the Giants, but scored a TD instead of a safety.

For your statement to hold any water, Brady would have to have had a much better game than Eli did. Both threw for 1 TD and no Ints, so this is where the passing yards come in. Brady threw for just 145 yards while Eli threw for 297.





You claimed Brady was more of a reason for the win against the Rams than the Pats D was. You then said that Justin Tuck and the Giants D was more of a reason for the Giants win against the Pats than Eli was. It is a total contradiction. Especially when Eli out played Brady and the Pats D outplayed the Giants D. You can keep saying they gave up 14 points in the 4th, but they held them to 17 total points and scored a TD on D. That is better than holding a team to 17 points and scoring a safety on D.

You know the Giants O only scored 10 until late in SB XLII and only scored 13 until late in XLVI, right?

NYG held the most explosive O in history to 7 pts through 3 qtrs in XLII, is that much difference than 3? did NYG give up a 14 pt lead in the 4th?

They didn't get great FP after the safety but they got pts from the D and got the ball back w/ momentum.

The Giants D played a better offense and did a better job against those offenses. The Past D did a great job for 3 qtrs but an atrocuois one in the 4th erasing almost all the good they had done to that point.

There's no doubt the Giants D played a bigger role, holding NE to 14 pts in XLII and 17 in XLVI- Incredible.

You can't have a great performance blowing a 14 pt 4th qtr lead becoming the only D in SB history to do that. Great for 3 qtrs but not a great game.

Brady had NO TOs, was inside his 20 w/ a minute to play and he was a 1st year starting QB knowing if he turns it over they lose the SB or if it gets to OT and SL wins the toss they lose the SB.

I never claimed Brady was more of a reason, the D kept them in it and Brady and the O won it.

The Giant D was the biggest reason the Giants won it but Eli led 2 great drives and gets his share of credit too.

SpurzN703
06-28-2012, 06:01 PM
I mentioned Plunkett in the first place b/c he is a perfect comparison to Eli, 2 time SB champ, SB MVP but never an elite QB.

You can't compare strict #s, you can compare how they do against their peers.

Eli has been a starter for 7 full seasons, Plunkett was one for 9 full seasons:

Top 10 in pass yds: Plunkett 5, Eli 4
Top 10 in pass TDs: Plunkett 3, Eli 6
Top 10 in rating: Plunkett 2, Eli 1
Top 10 INTs(top 10 is bad): Plunkett 7, Eli 5
top 10 in comp %: plunkett 1, Eli 1

VERY similar. #1 overall picks, struggled early, won 2 SBs in relatively short span, won SB MVPs- NOT elite.

I'm not nitpicking, I'm illustrating the difference in eras. I KNOW Marino is a top 5 all time QB, I KNOW he was much better than Brees- #s don't tell us that.

Get back to me in 7 years when Eli Manning is in his last stages of his career. By then he'll have 100+ more TDs, 2,000 more yards, and 1,400 more completions than now. We'll see just how VERY similar they are.

The New Guy
06-28-2012, 06:07 PM
You know the Giants O only scored 10 until late in SB XLII and only scored 13 until late in XLVI, right?

NYG held the most explosive O in history to 7 pts through 3 qtrs in XLII, is that much difference than 3? did NYG give up a 14 pt lead in the 4th?

They didn't get great FP after the safety but they got pts from the D and got the ball back w/ momentum.

The Giants D played a better offense and did a better job against those offenses. The Past D did a great job for 3 qtrs but an atrocuois one in the 4th erasing almost all the good they had done to that point.

There's no doubt the Giants D played a bigger role, holding NE to 14 pts in XLII and 17 in XLVI- Incredible.

You can't have a great performance blowing a 14 pt 4th qtr lead becoming the only D in SB history to do that. Great for 3 qtrs but not a great game.

Brady had NO TOs, was inside his 20 w/ a minute to play and he was a 1st year starting QB knowing if he turns it over they lose the SB or if it gets to OT and SL wins the toss they lose the SB.

I never claimed Brady was more of a reason, the D kept them in it and Brady and the O won it.

The Giant D was the biggest reason the Giants won it but Eli led 2 great drives and gets his share of credit too.

I'm not blaming the Giants D for losing a lead like you are blaming the Pats D. The Giants had a 9-0 lead in the 1st quarter before the Pats scored 17 unanswered on their 2nd, 4th and 5th possessions, but they get a pass since they held NE to 0 points in the 4th and a total of 17. The Pats D gets a pass on 14 4th quarter points because they only allowed 3 points through 3 quarters. It doesn't matter to me when the other team scores the points. The points total is all that matters. It doesn't matter if you allow 7 in the 1st, 7 in the 2nd and 3 in the 4th, or 0 in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd and 17 in the 4th. The points are worth the same. They allowed a total of 17 points. Same as what the Giants allowed but the Giants didn't score a TD on D like the Pats did.

It is ridiculous to blame the Pats D for losing a lead because they held the other team to a total of 17 and scored a TD while putting the O in scoring position on all but 1 of the other scores.


I am certain you did, but I'm not going to go through all the post to find it. Regardless, if that is how you feel now, what are we talking about then? :lol: Whatever credit you want to give to Brady in that game against the Rams, you have to give more to Eli in the game against the Pats because he did more. Whatever credit you want to give to the Giants D, you have to give more to the Pats D since they allowed the same number of points but also scored a TD.

SpurzN703
06-28-2012, 08:12 PM
I'm not blaming the Giants D for losing a lead like you are blaming the Pats D. The Giants had a 9-0 lead in the 1st quarter before the Pats scored 17 unanswered on their 2nd, 4th and 5th possessions. I don't know why it matters to you when a team loses the lead. It doesn't matter to me when the other team scores the points. The points total is all that matters. It doesn't matter if you allow 7 in the 1st, 7 in the 2nd and 3 in the 4th, or 0 in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd and 17 in the 4th. The points are worth the same. The Pats held the Rams to just 3 points after 9 possessions so the O had plenty of time to build a larger lead. That is why I blame the Pats O. On top of that, the D scored a TD and played a major role in all of the other points the Pats O scored. They allowed a total of 17 points. Same as what the Giants allowed.

I'm not blaming the Pats D for losing a lead because they held the other team to a total of 17 and scored a TD while putting the O in scoring position on all but 1 of the other scores.



I am certain you did, but I'm not going to go through all the post to find it. Regardless, if that is how you feel now, what are we talking about then? :lol: Whatever credit you want to give to Brady in that game against the Rams, you have to give more to Eli in the game against the Pats because he did more. Whatever credit you want to give to the Giants D, you have to give more to the Pats D since they allowed the same number of points but also scored a TD.


1,000 vbookie bucks says this never happens

nyjunc
06-29-2012, 08:00 AM
Get back to me in 7 years when Eli Manning is in his last stages of his career. By then he'll have 100+ more TDs, 2,000 more yards, and 1,400 more completions than now. We'll see just how VERY similar they are.

we'll see how many top 10 theys have not have much raw production. It's not fair to compare staright #s from players of different eras. as of now they have started around the same # of years, Eli has slight leads in some, Plunkett in others. They are both good QBs who helped their teams win 2 SBs.

Eli has a chance to be great, if he can play like he did in postseason for a full season there wouldn't be any doubt but he's never come close to that.

nyjunc
06-29-2012, 08:03 AM
I'm not blaming the Giants D for losing a lead like you are blaming the Pats D. The Giants had a 9-0 lead in the 1st quarter before the Pats scored 17 unanswered on their 2nd, 4th and 5th possessions, but they get a pass since they held NE to 0 points in the 4th and a total of 17. The Pats D gets a pass on 14 4th quarter points because they only allowed 3 points through 3 quarters. It doesn't matter to me when the other team scores the points. The points total is all that matters. It doesn't matter if you allow 7 in the 1st, 7 in the 2nd and 3 in the 4th, or 0 in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd and 17 in the 4th. The points are worth the same. They allowed a total of 17 points. Same as what the Giants allowed but the Giants didn't score a TD on D like the Pats did.

It is ridiculous to blame the Pats D for losing a lead because they held the other team to a total of 17 and scored a TD while putting the O in scoring position on all but 1 of the other scores.


I am certain you did, but I'm not going to go through all the post to find it. Regardless, if that is how you feel now, what are we talking about then? :lol: Whatever credit you want to give to Brady in that game against the Rams, you have to give more to Eli in the game against the Pats because he did more. Whatever credit you want to give to the Giants D, you have to give more to the Pats D since they allowed the same number of points but also scored a TD.


I'm certain I didn't, I always giove the NE D credit for playing great for 3 qtrs but it is a 4 qtr game and they nearly blew it but were rescued by Brady and the O. That was the only postseason run where the overrated Pats D played great almost throughout.

I don't give more to Eli b/c his D played better against better offenses. The NE D allowed 17 to SL, the NYG D allowed an average of 16 in 2 games. It's harder to do it twice and Brady was put in a near impossible spot and didn't need 2 fluke plays to happen to lead them to the GW score.

SpurzN703
06-29-2012, 08:19 AM
we'll see how many top 10 theys have not have much raw production. It's not fair to compare staright #s from players of different eras. as of now they have started around the same # of years, Eli has slight leads in some, Plunkett in others. They are both good QBs who helped their teams win 2 SBs.

Eli has a chance to be great, if he can play like he did in postseason for a full season there wouldn't be any doubt but he's never come close to that.

Jim Plunkett was good? Why were his stats so ****ty then? Eli Manning already owns him after 8 years. If Plunkett threw more TDs than INTs at minimum in his career I could see your point. He was mediocre at best.

nyjunc
06-29-2012, 09:14 AM
Jim Plunkett was good? Why were his stats so ****ty then? Eli Manning already owns him after 8 years. If Plunkett threw more TDs than INTs at minimum in his career I could see your point. He was mediocre at best.

b/c stas then weren't what stats are today. Do you get the whole top 10 thing comparing him to his peers?

1983 leader in TD passes: Lynn Dickey 32(only QB to throw 30 or more)
2011 leader in TD passes: Drew Brees 46(3 had 40 or more)

1983 leader in pass yds: Lynn Dickey 4458(one of 2 w/ 4,000 or more)
2011 leader in pass yds: Drew Brees 5476(3 had 5,000 or more, everyone in top 10 had at least 4,000

INTs for Dickey and Brees: Dickey 29, Brees 14

1983 leader in rating: Steve Bartkowski 97.6
2011 leader in rating: Aaron Rodgers 122.5(4 QBs were over 100)

1983 leader in comp %: Ken Anderson 66.7%
2011 leader in comp %: Drew Brees 71.2%


Do you finally get the point now?

SpurzN703
06-29-2012, 10:20 AM
b/c stas then weren't what stats are today. Do you get the whole top 10 thing comparing him to his peers?

1983 leader in TD passes: Lynn Dickey 32(only QB to throw 30 or more)
2011 leader in TD passes: Drew Brees 46(3 had 40 or more)

1983 leader in pass yds: Lynn Dickey 4458(one of 2 w/ 4,000 or more)
2011 leader in pass yds: Drew Brees 5476(3 had 5,000 or more, everyone in top 10 had at least 4,000

INTs for Dickey and Brees: Dickey 29, Brees 14

1983 leader in rating: Steve Bartkowski 97.6
2011 leader in rating: Aaron Rodgers 122.5(4 QBs were over 100)

1983 leader in comp %: Ken Anderson 66.7%
2011 leader in comp %: Drew Brees 71.2%


Do you finally get the point now?

If a guy who finished with 30 or so more INTs than TDs in his career is considered good when compared to the other players of his time, that says a lot about the style of play back then. You think you're making your point that it isn't justified to compare stats from players 30 years ago to today and I agree with you on that when we're talking about today's game being so much more QB-passing important.

What I don't agree with you on is that it's reasonable to compare anything about Plunkett or Manning. Especially when you're comparing how they fared against their competition in their era. The era 30 years ago is different than it is now so it doesn't make sense to compare anything about them.

The same can be said for all sports. Baseball and basketball of today is different than 30-40-50 years ago. Different eras, different times, completely different situations.

JETSJETSJETS
06-29-2012, 10:37 AM
If a guy who finished with 30 or so more INTs than TDs in his career is considered good when compared to the other players of his time, that says a lot about the style of play back then. You think you're making your point that it isn't justified to compare stats from players 30 years ago to today and I agree with you on that when we're talking about today's game being so much more QB-passing important.

What I don't agree with you on is that it's reasonable to compare anything about Plunkett or Manning. Especially when you're comparing how they fared against their competition in their era. The era 30 years ago is different than it is now so it doesn't make sense to compare anything about them.

The same can be said for all sports. Baseball and basketball of today is different than 30-40-50 years ago. Different eras, different times, completely different situations.

Joe Namath is a HoF QB. His rating? 65.5. He had 173 TDs and 220 ints. He was in the AFL All-time team, had two AFL MVPs, and several All-Pro equivalent titles. Its not the same NFL anymore. A rating of 65.5. There were 32 QBs last year that had a higher rating than that.

nyjunc
06-29-2012, 11:51 AM
If a guy who finished with 30 or so more INTs than TDs in his career is considered good when compared to the other players of his time, that says a lot about the style of play back then. You think you're making your point that it isn't justified to compare stats from players 30 years ago to today and I agree with you on that when we're talking about today's game being so much more QB-passing important.

What I don't agree with you on is that it's reasonable to compare anything about Plunkett or Manning. Especially when you're comparing how they fared against their competition in their era. The era 30 years ago is different than it is now so it doesn't make sense to compare anything about them.

The same can be said for all sports. Baseball and basketball of today is different than 30-40-50 years ago. Different eras, different times, completely different situations.

You can always compare players of any ear against their peers which is where those top 10s come in.

The New Guy
06-29-2012, 12:25 PM
I'm certain I didn't, I always giove the NE D credit for playing great for 3 qtrs but it is a 4 qtr game and they nearly blew it but were rescued by Brady and the O. That was the only postseason run where the overrated Pats D played great almost throughout.

I don't give more to Eli b/c his D played better against better offenses. The NE D allowed 17 to SL, the NYG D allowed an average of 16 in 2 games. It's harder to do it twice and Brady was put in a near impossible spot and didn't need 2 fluke plays to happen to lead them to the GW score.

If you didn't have 20,000+ post to go through, I would search for the quote as I am certain you said it. :chuckle: It doesn't matter. As long as you think the NE D played a bigger role in their first SB than Brady did, then we agree.

I was only comparing the Giants last SB win with the Pats first SB win. It is debatable, but I think the Rams had a better offense in 2001 than the Pats had in 2011. The Rams scored 503 points (ranked #1) in an era where scoring points wasn't as easy as it was in 2011. Only 2 other teams were in the 400 point range. (Colts 413, and the Niners 409) The Pats scored 513 points (ranked #3) and had GB and NO ahead of them with 560 and 540 points and 4 other teams in the 400 point range. To me, what the Pats D did to that Rams O was more impressive than what the Giants D did to the Pats O. Both were great performances by the D, but I give the edge to the Pats D since they not only held the Rams to 17 points, but they scored a TD. They put their team in a spot where they only needed to score 11 points on O to win the game against a high powered Rams O.

Brady led the game winning drive and gets credit for that, but he didn't do much the rest of the game. Eli led a game winning drive as well, and did more throughout the rest of the game. So, if you compare the Giants last SB win to the Pats first SB win, I don't see how you can give Brady or the Giants D more credit than Eli and the Pats D.

SpurzN703
06-29-2012, 12:31 PM
Joe Namath is a HoF QB. His rating? 65.5. He had 173 TDs and 220 ints. He was in the AFL All-time team, had two AFL MVPs, and several All-Pro equivalent titles. Its not the same NFL anymore. A rating of 65.5. There were 32 QBs last year that had a higher rating than that.

Not sure where we disagree

---------- Post added at 12:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 PM ----------


You can always compare players of any ear against their peers which is where those top 10s come in.

I don't agree. You act like stats aren't all that important but how can that be? Stats tell you the numbers a QB or any player was worth. If you think it's unfair to compare stats between eras (which I agree with), it's also unfair to compare players at all.

Kinzua
06-29-2012, 12:37 PM
Junc, I don't think you actually ever saw Plunkett play -- or even know much about him except his stats. Aside from being a QB and #1 pick in his draft class, there really isn't much similarity between Plunkett and Eli Manning. Despite his streakiness and moodiness, Manning has been a much better QB so far in his career than Plunkett was. In his eighth season, Manning won his second Super Bowl MVP after an outstanding regular season and playoff run. By his eighth season, Plunkett had been traded by his original team, released by his second team, and signed as a backup QB by Oakland. In both of his SB seasons, he started the season as the backup QB.

Unlike yourself, I actually remembered Plunkett, and what I remembered was a QB who had resurrected his career in Oakland (ala Kurt Warner in Arizona), but the fact is that except for his Super Bowls, he had much less success than Eli Manning. Since he played a long time ago, I looked him up. Check out his bio: Plunkett


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Plunkett)

nyjunc
06-29-2012, 01:21 PM
If you didn't have 20,000+ post to go through, I would search for the quote as I am certain you said it. :chuckle: It doesn't matter. As long as you think the NE D played a bigger role in their first SB than Brady did, then we agree.

I was only comparing the Giants last SB win with the Pats first SB win. It is debatable, but I think the Rams had a better offense in 2001 than the Pats had in 2011. The Rams scored 503 points (ranked #1) in an era where scoring points wasn't as easy as it was in 2011. Only 2 other teams were in the 400 point range. (Colts 413, and the Niners 409) The Pats scored 513 points (ranked #3) and had GB and NO ahead of them with 560 and 540 points and 4 other teams in the 400 point range. To me, what the Pats D did to that Rams O was more impressive than what the Giants D did to the Pats O. Both were great performances by the D, but I give the edge to the Pats D since they not only held the Rams to 17 points, but they scored a TD. They put their team in a spot where they only needed to score 11 points on O to win the game against a high powered Rams O.

Brady led the game winning drive and gets credit for that, but he didn't do much the rest of the game. Eli led a game winning drive as well, and did more throughout the rest of the game. So, if you compare the Giants last SB win to the Pats first SB win, I don't see how you can give Brady or the Giants D more credit than Eli and the Pats D.

Myabe it was in comparison to Peyton winning his SB b/c certainly Brady did more than Peyton did. The D was great for 3 qtrs but folded in the 4th, Brady and the O rescued them.

I'm getting dizzy, both D's and both QBs deserve a ton of credit.


Junc, I don't think you actually ever saw Plunkett play -- or even know much about him except his stats. Aside from being a QB and #1 pick in his draft class, there really isn't much similarity between Plunkett and Eli Manning. Despite his streakiness and moodiness, Manning has been a much better QB so far in his career than Plunkett was. In his eighth season, Manning won his second Super Bowl MVP after an outstanding regular season and playoff run. By his eighth season, Plunkett had been traded by his original team, released by his second team, and signed as a backup QB by Oakland. In both of his SB seasons, he started the season as the backup QB.

Unlike yourself, I actually remembered Plunkett, and what I remembered was a QB who had resurrected his career in Oakland (ala Kurt Warner in Arizona), but the fact is that except for his Super Bowls, he had much less success than Eli Manning. Since he played a long time ago, I looked him up. Check out his bio: Plunkett


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Plunkett)

I did see him play later in his career and I think there are numerous similarities.

-both #1 overall picks
-both struggled migfhtily early in their careers
-both led a WC team to their first SB and won SB MVP
-both won second SBs a few years later
-Neither has ever been an elite QB

Eli has a chance to be great, we'll see what he does going forward.


Eli was getting close to being an ex-Giant, remember he didn't have a good reg season in 2007, Coughlin was on the way and the heat was on Eli. he came through in jan/Feb but if not for that run Coughlin would have been gone and Eli not too far behind him.

Kinzua
06-29-2012, 08:11 PM
Myabe it was in comparison to Peyton winning his SB b/c certainly Brady did more than Peyton did. The D was great for 3 qtrs but folded in the 4th, Brady and the O rescued them.

I'm getting dizzy, both D's and both QBs deserve a ton of credit.



I did see him play later in his career and I think there are numerous similarities.

-both #1 overall picks
-both struggled migfhtily early in their careers
-both led a WC team to their first SB and won SB MVP
-both won second SBs a few years later
-Neither has ever been an elite QB

Eli has a chance to be great, we'll see what he does going forward.


Eli was getting close to being an ex-Giant, remember he didn't have a good reg season in 2007, Coughlin was on the way and the heat was on Eli. he came through in jan/Feb but if not for that run Coughlin would have been gone and Eli not too far behind him.

Did you bother to read the article?

In the first 8 years of his NFL career, Plunkett played on 3 diffferent teams, pretty much failed, and was relegated to backup duty. He wasn't instrumental in his team being successful after his first or second year.

In the first 8 years of his NFL career, Eli has won 2 Super Bowls in 5 years, been named Super Bowl MVP twice, and was generally credited with almost single-handedly (along with Nicks and Cruz) of keeping the Gnats in the playoff hunt until their D finally got rolling late in the season. While not considered elite until 2011, he sure wasn't considered a failure, even in his early years. He only suffered in comparison to his brother and to the 2 other outstanding QBs in his class, Roethlisberger and Rivers.

The New Guy
06-30-2012, 10:04 AM
Myabe it was in comparison to Peyton winning his SB b/c certainly Brady did more than Peyton did. The D was great for 3 qtrs but folded in the 4th, Brady and the O rescued them.

I'm getting dizzy, both D's and both QBs deserve a ton of credit.



It's from the spinning. :rimshot:

nyjunc
07-03-2012, 08:56 AM
Did you bother to read the article?

In the first 8 years of his NFL career, Plunkett played on 3 diffferent teams, pretty much failed, and was relegated to backup duty. He wasn't instrumental in his team being successful after his first or second year.

In the first 8 years of his NFL career, Eli has won 2 Super Bowls in 5 years, been named Super Bowl MVP twice, and was generally credited with almost single-handedly (along with Nicks and Cruz) of keeping the Gnats in the playoff hunt until their D finally got rolling late in the season. While not considered elite until 2011, he sure wasn't considered a failure, even in his early years. He only suffered in comparison to his brother and to the 2 other outstanding QBs in his class, Roethlisberger and Rivers.

I understand that, I didn't say they had the exact same careers but were very similar. Eli was nearly run out of town if not for that 2007 run.

He's still not considered elite, off of what he did last year he's still not in the top 30 from the players vote of the top 100.

He was considered a failure early in his career, through 3 seasons he hadn't led the Giants to a playoff win, in year 4 he threw 20 INTs and was on thin ince along w/ the HC until they made that great postseason run.

Kinzua
07-03-2012, 01:12 PM
I understand that, I didn't say they had the exact same careers but were very similar. Eli was nearly run out of town if not for that 2007 run.

He's still not considered elite, off of what he did last year he's still not in the top 30 from the players vote of the top 100.

He was considered a failure early in his career, through 3 seasons he hadn't led the Giants to a playoff win, in year 4 he threw 20 INTs and was on thin ince along w/ the HC until they made that great postseason run.

Aside from the fact that both were QBs who were the first picks in their draft classes, there is nothing similar about Plunkett's and Eli's careers through their first eight years.

Plunkett was good early on and then declined. Eli started out pretty mediocre and has improved.
That Eli would have been "run out of town" if he hadn't won the Super Bowl in 2007 is your opinion; Plunkett was "run out of town" after his 5th season.
Plunkett was traded away by his original team, cut by his second team, and was signed as a backup QB by a third team in his first eight seasons while Eli has been with his original team his entire career.
Plunkett spent his 8th season on the bench, and was never again a full time starter. Eli spent his 8th season keeping his team in the playoff hunt until the defense and the running game got up to speed, and is unlikely to lose his starting job any time soon.
Plunkett had led none of his teams to championships in his first 8 years and didn't win his first Super Bowl until his 10th season (1980). Eli has already won two Super Bowl rings in his first 8 seasons.


By the end of his career, Plunkett had won 2 SBs and been named Super Bowl MVP twice, so eventually he had another similarity with Eli. Of course, if Eli plays for 16 seasons, he might win a couple of more Super Bowls.

nyjunc
07-03-2012, 01:46 PM
Aside from the fact that both were QBs who were the first picks in their draft classes, there is nothing similar about Plunkett's and Eli's careers through their first eight years.

Plunkett was good early on and then declined. Eli started out pretty mediocre and has improved.
That Eli would have been "run out of town" if he hadn't won the Super Bowl in 2007 is your opinion; Plunkett was "run out of town" after his 5th season.
Plunkett was traded away by his original team, cut by his second team, and was signed as a backup QB by a third team in his first eight seasons while Eli has been with his original team his entire career.
Plunkett spent his 8th season on the bench, and was never again a full time starter. Eli spent his 8th season keeping his team in the playoff hunt until the defense and the running game got up to speed, and is unlikely to lose his starting job any time soon.
Plunkett had led none of his teams to championships in his first 8 years and didn't win his first Super Bowl until his 10th season (1980). Eli has already won two Super Bowl rings in his first 8 seasons.


By the end of his career, Plunkett had won 2 SBs and been named Super Bowl MVP twice, so eventually he had another similarity with Eli. Of course, if Eli plays for 16 seasons, he might win a couple of more Super Bowls.

other than the fact that both were #1 overall picks, both struggled early in their careers, both won SB MVps, both helped their teams win 2 SBs in a relatively short period of time and neither was elite there is very little they have in common.

You act like Eli has had this steady rise. Eli was bad his first year, got better in year 2, remained the same in year 3, got worse in year 4, had his best season in year 5, took a step back in year 6, had his worst non rookie season in year 7 and improved in year 8. There wasn't consistency in the way he improved, this is a man who threw 25 INts just a season ago.

Plunkett didn't play onn teams w/ defenses like the Giants had in 2007 and 2011 and didn't play in the parity/FA era and he won his first SB in his 7th full season season starting, his 2nd in his 9th full season starting. Eli has been starting 7 full seasons- very similar.

Plunkett only has 1 SB MVP

JTC111
07-03-2012, 08:40 PM
He was considered a failure early in his career, through 3 seasons he hadn't led the Giants to a playoff win... I'm not sure why Jets fans like to hang their hats on this. Have there been great quarterbacks that had bad years at the beginning of their careers? Sure. But so did every crappy quarterback that played two seasons more than they should have. Sometimes sucking at the beginning of a career is an indicator that you suck.

nyjunc
07-05-2012, 08:50 AM
I'm not sure why Jets fans like to hang their hats on this. Have there been great quarterbacks that had bad years at the beginning of their careers? Sure. But so did every crappy quarterback that played two seasons more than they should have. Sometimes sucking at the beginning of a career is an indicator that you suck.

That's good b/c our QB ahs yet to lead us to a losing record and has 2 title game apps in 3 years so obviously he's been a success. That bodes well for the future.

JTC111
07-05-2012, 11:35 AM
That's good b/c our QB ahs yet to lead us to a losing record and has 2 title game apps in 3 years so obviously he's been a success. That bodes well for the future.

Your qb led you right to mediocrity last year, didn't he?

nyjunc
07-05-2012, 11:51 AM
Your qb led you right to mediocrity last year, didn't he?

He helped, we had a terrible year but you guys would be doing cartwheels if you won 8 games. It's nice that we won 8 and that is considered an awful season.

JTC111
07-05-2012, 05:33 PM
He helped, we had a terrible year but you guys would be doing cartwheels if you won 8 games. It's nice that we won 8 and that is considered an awful season.

You'd get no cartwheels from me ...not even for making the playoffs. I've seen too many seasons where the Fins made the playoffs and went out first round. We'd have to win a couple of games in the postseason for me to start to get excited. But considering the Jets history, I can see why 8-8 might sound okay to some of you.

SpurzN703
07-07-2012, 08:58 PM
other than the fact that both were #1 overall picks, both struggled early in their careers, both won SB MVps, both helped their teams win 2 SBs in a relatively short period of time and neither was elite there is very little they have in common.

You act like Eli has had this steady rise. Eli was bad his first year, got better in year 2, remained the same in year 3, got worse in year 4, had his best season in year 5, took a step back in year 6, had his worst non rookie season in year 7 and improved in year 8. There wasn't consistency in the way he improved, this is a man who threw 25 INts just a season ago.

Plunkett didn't play onn teams w/ defenses like the Giants had in 2007 and 2011 and didn't play in the parity/FA era and he won his first SB in his 7th full season season starting, his 2nd in his 9th full season starting. Eli has been starting 7 full seasons- very similar.

Plunkett only has 1 SB MVP

The fact that Plunkett has 30 more INTs than TDs in his career should end this discussion right here. A QB who finishes with the stats he finished with in the 1970s, the 2090s, 800 A.D....when the **** ever.....the guy cannot be elite by any stretch of the imagination. Eli Manning has those 2 SB wins and MVPs and has the stats to back him up.

He also still has 8-10 more years to add on to his already decent stats. There is no comparison between the two now which means there won't possibly be anything to discuss about their careers in 2020.

nyjunc
07-09-2012, 08:37 AM
You'd get no cartwheels from me ...not even for making the playoffs. I've seen too many seasons where the Fins made the playoffs and went out first round. We'd have to win a couple of games in the postseason for me to start to get excited. But considering the Jets history, I can see why 8-8 might sound okay to some of you.

You've seen the playoffs once in the last 10 seasons, you haven't won a playoff game sinc 2000, you haven't advanced beyond a div rd since 1992 and you wouldn't be excited about a postseason berth?

8-8 sucks, that's the point. People act like we went 2-14 last year. That's a good thing b/c it means the expectations are high, Miami goes 6-10 and no one notices, the Jets go 8-8 and that is all anyone can talk about.


The fact that Plunkett has 30 more INTs than TDs in his career should end this discussion right here. A QB who finishes with the stats he finished with in the 1970s, the 2090s, 800 A.D....when the **** ever.....the guy cannot be elite by any stretch of the imagination. Eli Manning has those 2 SB wins and MVPs and has the stats to back him up.

He also still has 8-10 more years to add on to his already decent stats. There is no comparison between the two now which means there won't possibly be anything to discuss about their careers in 2020.

No it shouldn't be AGAIN you are comparing individual #s of players from vastly different eras. AGAIN, you compare them against their peers ansd they are quite similar so far against their peers.

I think 8-10 years is being very generous, I think it's closer to 5 and yes he can seperate himself from Plunkett but as o now the two are very similar.

The fact that you keep throwing out individual #s tells me you shouldn't be debating this topic.

nyjunc
07-09-2012, 10:23 AM
By the way, on si.com this morning longtime GM Bruce Allen listed Plunkett as one of many he thinks belongs in he HOF but how is that possible considering he threw 34 more INts than TDs?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/07/08/guest-mmqb-bruce-allen/2.html

SpurzN703
07-09-2012, 11:28 AM
No it shouldn't be AGAIN you are comparing individual #s of players from vastly different eras. AGAIN, you compare them against their peers ansd they are quite similar so far against their peers.

I think 8-10 years is being very generous, I think it's closer to 5 and yes he can seperate himself from Plunkett but as o now the two are very similar.

Manning is similar against his peers? Who else who isn't Tom Brady has 2 SB wins and 2 SB MVPs in 5 years?


The fact that you keep throwing out individual #s tells me you shouldn't be debating this topic.

It's true. I just can't compete with the professional facts that are actually just opinions from you. What am I doing here after 8 years?

SpurzN703
07-09-2012, 11:33 AM
By the way, on si.com this morning longtime GM Bruce Allen listed Plunkett as one of many he thinks belongs in he HOF but how is that possible considering he threw 34 more INts than TDs?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/07/08/guest-mmqb-bruce-allen/2.html

Welp better get him in then since Bruce Allen says so

---------- Post added at 11:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 AM ----------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_wins_by_a_starting_quarterback_%28NFL%29

.500 record and 34 more INTs than TDs for his career. 1 Super Bowl win and MVP in a flash in the pan (but deserved) victory. Yippy.

nyjunc
07-09-2012, 11:33 AM
Manning is similar against his peers? Who else who isn't Tom Brady has 2 SB wins and 2 SB MVPs in 5 years?



It's true. I just can't compete with the professional facts that are actually just opinions from you. What am I doing here after 8 years?

SB MVPs are from ONE GAME and it's easily argued he didn't deserve either one. It's not like he was lights out in either game.

he has similar amounts of top 10 finishes as Plunkett in almost the same amount of years as a starter.



Welp better get him in then since Bruce Allen says so

Just pointing out how silly it is to look at a QB of the 70s & 80s and compare his individual stats to a QB of today.

SpurzN703
07-09-2012, 01:52 PM
SB MVPs are from ONE GAME and it's easily argued he didn't deserve either one. It's not like he was lights out in either game.

he has similar amounts of top 10 finishes as Plunkett in almost the same amount of years as a starter.

Argue it all you want. He's the MVP twice now.


Just pointing out how silly it is to look at a QB of the 70s & 80s and compare his individual stats to a QB of today.

I don't think they should be compared in any way including just plain old statistics

nyjunc
07-09-2012, 02:02 PM
Argue it all you want. He's the MVP twice now.



I don't think they should be compared in any way including just plain old statistics

That's great but that doesn't make up for his mostly mediocre reg seasons and his ZERO elite level full seasons.


Both #1 overall picks
both struggled early(Plunkett was let go by SF, Eli was on his way in NY)
both won multiple SBs after being left for dead and both won SB MVPs
both lost in the 2nd rd/div rd in only playoff app btw SB apps(plunkett upset at home by Jets in '82, Eli upset at home by Philly in '08)
Both led NFL in INTs- Plunkett once, Eli twice
Plunkett top 10 in rating twice, Eli once
Plunkett 7 times top 10 in GW drives, Eli 3
Plunkett 7 times in top 10 in comebacks, Eli 4

it goes on and one

Kinzua
07-09-2012, 02:05 PM
SB MVPs are from ONE GAME and it's easily argued he didn't deserve either one. It's not like he was lights out in either game.

he has similar amounts of top 10 finishes as Plunkett in almost the same amount of years as a starter.

Plunkett's last year as a bonafide starter was 1976 or 1977 IIRC. After he was cut by San Fran, he couldn't ever earn a starting job again but inherited starting jobs when the QB ahead of him got hurt. He earned both of his SB rings as a fill-in for the Raiders' starting QB. In other words, he was a bigger version of Doug Flutie on better teams than the 1999 Bills. Neither Plunkett nor Flutie belong in the HOF.

Eli Manning has been the full time starter for the Gnats since his rookie season. That's starting for 7 full years. He's going to be the Gnats starter for the foreseeable future, too. Whether his record is good enough to get him into the HOF or not is still to be determined. There is no doubt that he played at an elite level in 2011, especially early in the season when his late game heroics made the Gnats' late run for the playoffs possible. If he strings together two or three more similar years, then he definitely punches his ticket to Canton.

Plunkett isn't in the HOF because he not only didn't put up good numbers, but also because he wasn't good enough to be a full time starting QB in the NFL for most of his career. DOH!
[/QUOTE]

nyjunc
07-09-2012, 02:13 PM
Plunkett's last year as a bonafide starter was 1976 or 1977 IIRC. After he was cut by San Fran, he couldn't ever earn a starting job again but inherited starting jobs when the QB ahead of him got hurt. He earned both of his SB rings as a fill-in for the Raiders' starting QB. In other words, he was a bigger version of Doug Flutie on better teams than the 1999 Bills. Neither Plunkett nor Flutie belong in the HOF.

Eli Manning has been the full time starter for the Gnats since his rookie season. That's starting for 7 full years. He's going to be the Gnats starter for the foreseeable future, too. Whether his record is good enough to get him into the HOF or not is still to be determined. There is no doubt that he played at an elite level in 2011, especially early in the season when his late game heroics made the Gnats' late run for the playoffs possible. If he strings together two or three more similar years, then he definitely punches his ticket to Canton.

Plunkett isn't in the HOF because he not only didn't put up good numbers, but also because he wasn't good enough to be a full time starting QB in the NFL for most of his career. DOH!


I didn't say plunkett belongs in the Hall, just pointed out what bruce Allen said.

How many playoff apps has Buf made since they let Flutie go? how many SBs has Oak/LA won since Plunkett retired?

Eli played at an elite level at TIMES last year, he did not have an elite full season or else his team would have been better than 9-7 in a mediocre division. he doesn't have a single elite level full season.

SpurzN703
07-09-2012, 03:56 PM
That's great but that doesn't make up for his mostly mediocre reg seasons and his ZERO elite level full seasons.

Sucks that the mediocre QB in your city has more rings than your entire franchise's history. I know.


Both #1 overall picks
both struggled early(Plunkett was let go by SF, Eli was on his way in NY)
both won multiple SBs after being left for dead and both won SB MVPs
both lost in the 2nd rd/div rd in only playoff app btw SB apps(plunkett upset at home by Jets in '82, Eli upset at home by Philly in '08)
Both led NFL in INTs- Plunkett once, Eli twice
Plunkett top 10 in rating twice, Eli once
Plunkett 7 times top 10 in GW drives, Eli 3
Plunkett 7 times in top 10 in comebacks, Eli 4

it goes on and one

So you don't want to compare their stats b/c of the different era but it's okay to compare them in INTs, ratings, GW drives, and in comebacks. Do you realize their statistics come from every one of those scenarios you're trying to use to make your point?

SpurzN703
07-09-2012, 04:01 PM
How many playoff apps has Buf made since they let Flutie go? how many SBs has Oak/LA won since Plunkett retired?

The Raiders actually went to the Super Bowl in 2002, something the Jets haven't done in 43 years. Did they win, no. But don't let that prevent you from acting like it's such an easy task to make it to the Super Bowl every year.

nyjunc
07-09-2012, 04:06 PM
Sucks that the mediocre QB in your city has more rings than your entire franchise's history. I know.



So you don't want to compare their stats b/c of the different era but it's okay to compare them in INTs, ratings, GW drives, and in comebacks. Do you realize their statistics come from every one of those scenarios you're trying to use to make your point?

where did I call Eli mediocre?

You just don't get it for some reason. I am comparing them to their PEERS, those #s are against the players in their league in their era. Top 10s tell us something, just blindly reciting yds, TDs, INts does not tell us a thing.


The Raiders actually went to the Super Bowl in 2002, something the Jets haven't done in 43 years. Did they win, no. But don't let that prevent you from acting like it's such an easy task to make it to the Super Bowl every year.

you are all over the place, at what point did I say it was easy to reach the SB?

SpurzN703
07-09-2012, 08:18 PM
where did I call Eli mediocre?

You just don't get it for some reason. I am comparing them to their PEERS, those #s are against the players in their league in their era. Top 10s tell us something, just blindly reciting yds, TDs, INts does not tell us a thing.

You're right, I don't get why you're so insistent that Plunkett vs. his peers is the same as Manning vs. his. It's the year of the QB in the NFL now. What was it in Plunkett's days, throw more INTs than TDs in your career and be considered hall of fame worthy?




you are all over the place, at what point did I say it was easy to reach the SB?

All over the place...perhaps if you'd stop trying to insult me and speak like a real hombre then we'd get somewhere.

Your question about how many SBs Oakland has been to since Plunkett has retired as if he was the almighty reason they won their SBs 100 years ago. How many repeat teams have gotten to the Super Bowl since he retired? No more than a few right? It isn't easy.

nyjunc
07-10-2012, 08:18 AM
You're right, I don't get why you're so insistent that Plunkett vs. his peers is the same as Manning vs. his. It's the year of the QB in the NFL now. What was it in Plunkett's days, throw more INTs than TDs in your career and be considered hall of fame worthy?





All over the place...perhaps if you'd stop trying to insult me and speak like a real hombre then we'd get somewhere.

Your question about how many SBs Oakland has been to since Plunkett has retired as if he was the almighty reason they won their SBs 100 years ago. How many repeat teams have gotten to the Super Bowl since he retired? No more than a few right? It isn't easy.

Maybe it's my fault for not being more clear b/c I know you are an intelligent guy. Comparing Plunkett vs. his peers is the same as comparing Eli vs. his peers. Eli may have more Tds but the top 10s are vs/ guys of his era so I am not comparing his #s to a player of a different era I am comparing him to his peers so maybe 25 TDs gets you a top 10 in 2011 and maybe 15 in 1980- they'd both be top 10 finishes and that is what I am comparing not pure #s. Their careers are very similar so far, Eli has a chance to move way out in front but we'll see if he can.


I'm not insulting you, if you have a guilty conscience that is on you.

The point of bringing up the SB wins was to illustrate how difficult it is to win. They haven't won one since that "terrible" QB w/ more INts than TDs helped them win 2 so maybe he's not that terrible? Maybe #s don't tell us the whole story? Most fans thinkt he way you do, many players too if you saw Amani Toomer's ridiculous comments last week but the position is about more than just fantasy #s.

SpurzN703
07-10-2012, 09:55 AM
Maybe it's my fault for not being more clear b/c I know you are an intelligent guy. Comparing Plunkett vs. his peers is the same as comparing Eli vs. his peers. Eli may have more Tds but the top 10s are vs/ guys of his era so I am not comparing his #s to a player of a different era I am comparing him to his peers so maybe 25 TDs gets you a top 10 in 2011 and maybe 15 in 1980- they'd both be top 10 finishes and that is what I am comparing not pure #s. Their careers are very similar so far, Eli has a chance to move way out in front but we'll see if he can.

If anything I believe it's reasonable to compare them to their peers but not to each other. I don't think it's fair to do both. I also don't agree that their career numbers are similar. Eli Manning's numbers have already surpassed Plunkett's entire career and Manning has 8-10 years left. It's pretty safe to assume his numbers will get even better unless he gets hit by a meteor.

---------- Post added at 09:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 AM ----------


I'm not insulting you, if you have a guilty conscience that is on you.

See to me you're insulting me right there. I'm not a moron. You tell me I don't get it, I'm all over the place, and that I shouldn't be in this discussion.

These are compliments to you? Stick to the topic and leave the personal attempts at distracting me alone.

Kinzua
07-10-2012, 10:24 AM
I didn't say plunkett belongs in the Hall, just pointed out what bruce Allen said.

How many playoff apps has Buf made since they let Flutie go? how many SBs has Oak/LA won since Plunkett retired?

Eli played at an elite level at TIMES last year, he did not have an elite full season or else his team would have been better than 9-7 in a mediocre division. he doesn't have a single elite level full season.

What does Buffalo have to do with this discussion? We're talking about the Jests ... and your obsession with deprecating the achievements of the rival Gnats' current starting QB by comparing him to a mediocre QB from the 1970s-1980s who got lucky a couple of times.

nyjunc
07-10-2012, 10:55 AM
What does Buffalo have to do with this discussion? We're talking about the Jests ... and your obsession with deprecating the achievements of the rival Gnats' current starting QB by comparing him to a mediocre QB from the 1970s-1980s who got lucky a couple of times.

You were the one who brought up Flutie, Flutie did play for the Bills, right?

So Plunkett got lucky a couple of times winning 2 SBs by an average of 23 pts but Eli didn't get lucky winning 2 by an average of 3.5 where he needed a team to drop an INT and a ball to stick to a helmet in the first one and a sure handed Welker to drop a critical pass in the 2nd one. Please explain.

I give Eli tons of credit for what he has done, that doesn't mean I have to lie and act like he's Tom Brady. he doesn't have the consistent track record of elite play to be an elite QB. I'd want him over almost any QB in a big game but for an entire season he's not elite.

SpurzN703
07-10-2012, 12:47 PM
You were the one who brought up Flutie, Flutie did play for the Bills, right?

So Plunkett got lucky a couple of times winning 2 SBs by an average of 23 pts but Eli didn't get lucky winning 2 by an average of 3.5 where he needed a team to drop an INT and a ball to stick to a helmet in the first one and a sure handed Welker to drop a critical pass in the 2nd one. Please explain.


Coincidentally Plunkett's two Super Bowl years were 2 out of 3 total seasons where he had good stats. Every other year his stats were mediocre to poor. Was he lucky? Every QB is.

nyjunc
07-10-2012, 12:51 PM
Coincidentally Plunkett's two Super Bowl years were 2 out of 3 total seasons where he had good stats. Every other year his stats were mediocre to poor. Was he lucky? Every QB is.

AGAIN, his stats were fine for that era which is why he had similar amounts of top 10 finishes as Eli. He's not a HOFer, he doesn't belong and neither does Eli right now. Eli can change that by playing high level seasons going forward, we'll see.

SpurzN703
07-10-2012, 03:01 PM
AGAIN, his stats were fine for that era which is why he had similar amounts of top 10 finishes as Eli. He's not a HOFer, he doesn't belong and neither does Eli right now. Eli can change that by playing high level seasons going forward, we'll see.

I'll eventually study the other QBs in his era to see how they match up. His stats are **** and if the other QBs in his era's stats are also **** and they're in the HOF, hell, put him in there too. Why not?

nyjunc
07-10-2012, 03:20 PM
he's not a HOFer but he wasn't a bad QB- just like Eli.

SpurzN703
07-10-2012, 05:23 PM
he's not a HOFer but he wasn't a bad QB- just like Eli.

Check this out

http://espn.go.com/blog/afcwest/post/_/id/39439/eli-manning-puts-spotlight-on-jim-plunkett

SpurzN703
07-10-2012, 05:26 PM
An interesting take by a fan


No hurry, but considering where we are in the season, and who's left standing, I think it's a relatively interesting point that I haven't heard brought up prior to my doing so this evening.

Plunkett is worth the discussion, but I'm not sure it's more relevant since he's been retired for 25 years.

.500 career win %.
52.5% passer
sub 70 rating
7.0 YPA
34 more INTs than TDs in his career.
Never once started a full season for the Raiders, save for the strike-shortened 1982 season.

In his best season, 1983...
10-3
60.7%
2935 Yds
20/18 TD/INT
7.7 YPA
82.7 Rate
10.0 Sk%
5.1 Adjusted Net YPA

2 Super Bowls gave him a small piece of discussion, but his numbers, even when adjusted for era, just never added up.

http://footballpros.com/showthread.php/10525-QBs-with-multiple-Super-Bowl-victories...