|
|
Post by gangrene on Dec 22, 2014 11:05:35 GMT -5
Jets turned some heads. yesterday. That was Tom's whiplash during his four scrotal sacks. |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Dec 22, 2014 11:06:54 GMT -5
Wonder how RahRahs breakfast tasted
|
|
|
|
Post by gangrene on Dec 22, 2014 11:49:42 GMT -5
Wonder how RahRahs breakfast tasted He's probably very pleased with his new avatar. |
|
|
|
Post by Bavarian on Dec 22, 2014 11:56:14 GMT -5
We'll disagree on that for the reason you hinted at - they're undermanned. They will not be able to run nor stop the run and their receivers will have as tough if not tougher time than Denver did last year as the talent comparison isn't very close. Demayrious Thomas, Decker, Welker, Julius Thomas of last year vs Amendola, Gronk, LaFell, Edelman of this year when comparing talent level and the Broncos were manhandled. I don't see NE lighting them up. And they would need to because Seattle will move the ball on that front 7 as stronger teams tend to do this time of year. Another SB mismatch. You and others give way too much credit to a team built to win regular season games. We'll see how it plays out. I listened to Homeless Hoodie yesterday talk about the years he spent coaching special teams and how they had worked on a way to counter the Jets special teams efforts to prevent the Pasties blocking the field goal. The dude is so anally detail orientated in minutia, thats why I believe his team always has a chance. What bothers me about the modern game of football is the slant towards the offensive side of the ball. It's a cliche we are all tired of but unless you have a top fifteen qb you have a miniscule chance of winning the super bowl. A great defense and a running game is no longer enough. So ultimately it comes down to drafting a qb. If you don't have a top one, then you, the fan, are just handing those dollars to the owner for some bad beer in a parking lot with 70,000 other suckers. I wasn't planning on continuing this as it's simply clear we see differently, but there's so much I disagree with you on here that I'll bite again. First of all, I want to clarify that I never claimed that running the ball is the end-all be-all ingredient to success. I meant that this is kryptonite along with physical defense against NE. I wasn't making generalizing sweeping commentary - I was talking about the Pats* in particular. All teams should strive towards balance on offense. We've seen this played out for nearly a decade now and secondly, you do need to play some defense to win a Super Bowl. There's a reason NE has been blown out by Baltimore twice and nearly so by the Jets in the playoffs while they could not beat the Giants twice nor even the Broncos last year. They couldn't stop the opposition enough to get by. You can't play matador defense and win trophies. And you'll see this played out again and sure enough, this time next year many will again be clamoring about NE's lopsided regular season wins as amounting to something. To say this is simply about the QB is missing a lot IMO. Eli, Russell Wilson, Flacco - these guys have never been among the elite in passing stats. But they all had something in common - managing the offense, making big plays when it mattered and being part of a balanced offensive attack. Something Marino refused to allow. Something Manning has refused as well. Imagine, only one SB for Peyton in all his years of dominance. And that was attained before the passing rules were initiated that we have today.
It seems like everyone (in listening to the media) forgot about last year's SB. Did you not notice what happened to the offensive slant in that game? Pass-happy teams almost never win Super Bowls (unless they face each other) and I think the notion of top-level QB's being such a need in overblown. There have been exceptions but by and large, the better balanced teams almost always win out. Do you really think the Pats* are going to slow down Marshall Lynch right now? Not a chance. And the game management by Wilson coupled with that defense (which will render NE one-dimensional) will turn that game ugly in a hurry just like last year's SB. Seattle can do it all. And will turn loose the dogs with their pass rush on top of it. Beyond this, with the salary cap, these top QB's are hogging such a high percentage of that cap that teams are finding it difficult to field a competent, balanced team. The Ravens haven't recovered since extending Flacco floundering in mediocrity while SF and Seattle have gone with QB's on rookie deals to spread the wealth to other positions and enjoying deep runs consistently. The Pats* and Broncos have always had holes and can't muster wins against physical teams. The Saints have gotten considerably worse since extending Brees. Watch what happens to GB when they have to extend Rodgers in this market. Ditto for Rivers. And Roethlisberger as the Steelers have been in cap hell. They'll have to cut a bunch of players to keep Ben. One by one, these teams will have to sacrifice the balance of the team strengths only to fairly compensate their QB in today's market. Dalton's extension won't help them fill all the holes in Cincy in the future and they'll never be a SB threat IMO.
So paint me skeptical as to the long-term success of pass-happy teams with their "star" QB's. To me, it hasn't translated into sustained SB threat status. It might get you some lopsided wins in the regular season (and wow fans into believing they are better than they really are), but whooop-dee-frickin-doo, that's about it. Yesterday's game vs the Fagtriots should serve as a reminder that the Jets should stay the course on their quest to build a more balanced offense combined with solid, physical defense. It's a blueprint towards beating those uber-finesse Pats.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlito1171 on Dec 22, 2014 11:57:57 GMT -5
Just a follow-up to all of you who were so certain that these teams were so different after two months. Not the case. I hope none of you bet on the Pats* to cover with the 10.5 point spread even though most of you seemed that this was a sure thing. It was sucker money lost. Rex plays this team tough when he doesn't have a turnover machine at QB. He can coach in this league but is better suited to DCoord. And to all of you: the Fagtriots are not all that. If they run into a team that can run the ball and defend, they're toast. The blueprint to beating them remains the same. Don't go into a battle of finesse. Out-physical them. Seattle will eat them for lunch in the next Super Bowl. NE is fortunate that Baltimore is down as well as the Jets. No one stands in their way in the AFC outside of a potential Steeler matchup but even that one is a stretch. Denver, Indy, Cincy (for some reason) have no shot at beating NE. +1 Very good point. There are no teams in the AFC that can punch NE in the mouth. Denver can beat them, but it would be with Manning out-dueling Brady. There are some NFC teams that will smack the Pats in the mouth if they do reach the SB. |
|
|
|
Post by gangrene on Dec 22, 2014 12:28:52 GMT -5
We'll see how it plays out. I listened to Homeless Hoodie yesterday talk about the years he spent coaching special teams and how they had worked on a way to counter the Jets special teams efforts to prevent the Pasties blocking the field goal. The dude is so anally detail orientated in minutia, thats why I believe his team always has a chance. What bothers me about the modern game of football is the slant towards the offensive side of the ball. It's a cliche we are all tired of but unless you have a top fifteen qb you have a miniscule chance of winning the super bowl. A great defense and a running game is no longer enough. So ultimately it comes down to drafting a qb. If you don't have a top one, then you, the fan, are just handing those dollars to the owner for some bad beer in a parking lot with 70,000 other suckers. There's so much I disagree with you on here. First of all, I've never claimed that running the ball is the end-all be-all ingredient to success. I meant that this is kryptonite along with physical defense against NE. I wasn't making generalizing sweeping commentary - I was talking about the Pats* in particular. All teams should strive towards balance on offense. We've seen this played out for nearly a decade now and secondly, you do need to play some defense to win a Super Bowl. There's a reason NE has been blown out by Baltimore twice and nearly so by the Jets in the playoffs while they could not beat the Giants nor even the Broncos last year. They couldn't stop the opposition enough to get by. You can't play matador defense and win trophies. And you'll see this played out again and sure enough, this time next year many of you will be clamoring about NE's lopsided regular season wins as amounting to something. To say this is simply about the QB is missing a lot IMO. Eli, Russell Wilson, Flacco - these guys have never been among the elite in passing stats. But they all had something in common - managing the offense, making big plays when it mattered and being part of a balanced offensive attack. Something Marino refused to allow. Something Manning has refused as well. Imagine, only one SB for Peyton in all his years of dominance. And that was before the passing rules were initiated that we have today.
It seems like everyone (in listening to the media) forgot about last year's SB. Did you not notice what happened to the offensive slant in that game? Pass-happy teams almost never win Super Bowls (unless they face each other) and I think the notion of top-level QB's being such a need in overblown. There have been exceptions but by and large, the better balanced teams almost always win out. Do you really think the Pats* are going to slow down Marshall Lynch right now? Not a chance. And the game management by Wilson coupled with that defense (which will render NE one-dimensional) will turn that game ugly in a hurry. Seattle can do it all. And will turn loose the dogs with their pass rush on top of it. Beyond this, with the salary cap, these top QB's are hogging such a high percentage of that cap that teams are finding it difficult to field a competent, balanced team. The Ravens haven't recovered since extending Flacco floundering in mediocrity while SF and Seattle have gone with QB's on rookie deals to spread the wealth to other positions and enjoying deep runs consistently. The Pats* and Broncos have always had holes and can't muster wins against physical teams. The Saints haven't gotten over the hump since extending Brees. Watch what happens to GB when they have to extend Rodgers in this market. Ditto for Rivers. And Roethlisberger as the Steelers have been in cap hell. They'll have to cut a bunch of players to keep Ben. One by one, these teams will have to sacrifice the balance of the team strengths only to fairly compensate their QB in today's market. Dalton's extension won't help them fill all the holes in Cincy in the future and they'll never be a SB threat.
So paint me skeptical as to the long-term success of pass-happy teams with their "star" QB's. To me, it hasn't translated into sustained SB threat status. It might get you some lopsided wins in the regular season, but whooop-dee-frickin-doo that's about it. Yesterday's game vs the Fagtriots should serve as a reminder that the Jets should stay the course on their quest to build a more balanced offense combined with solid, physical defense.
I believe you misinterpreted my comments about the running game with a great defense being no longer the an effective road to winning the super bowl. That was a point I put out there as a general comment on the state of football. No where did I say you believed that. I get the balanced team goes a long way to winning a super bowl. I agree with you 100% that a great QB on a mediocre team are not enough, there are tons of examples out there. In the year 2014 you still need an extraordinary qb back there to make it work. That said Seattle has a balanced team, the Pasties have a balanced team, the Packers have a balanced team. At the very worst you need a somewhat talented extraordinarily lucky qb to do it (Eli Manning) Is any of these three teams winning the Super Bowl if you put Geno Smith, Mark Sanchez back there ?... even (a step up) if you put a Jay Cutler or an Andy Dalton back there ? Nick Foles or Ryan Tannahill ? We could argue this until the cows come home but my belief is a no. You make an excellent point about a veteran qb sucking up too much cap and screwing up a team - Joe Flacco is a perfect example. We both know this, that is why Seattle was at a huge advantage with Wilson on his rookie deal. Yet SparklePony and Aaron Rogers are still on competitive balanced teams. Sparklepony gave the Pasties a below market deal until his last contract and they also don't give away too many stupid contracts. Seperately are the Pats going to slow down Marshawn Lynch ? On paper no but funny how stuff plays out on actual game day. Last week the Jets with the third best running game in the NFL played the Titans which was then rated as the worst rushing defense in all of the nfl (it is now the second worst). You know the story, the Jets had a healthy oline with all their starters facing a no name defense In theory the Jets should have run all day long over the Titans. The did not get close to breaking 100 yards in rushing, they squeaked out a win against arguably the worst team in football. |
|
|
|
Post by Bavarian on Dec 22, 2014 13:38:35 GMT -5
There's so much I disagree with you on here. First of all, I've never claimed that running the ball is the end-all be-all ingredient to success. I meant that this is kryptonite along with physical defense against NE. I wasn't making generalizing sweeping commentary - I was talking about the Pats** in particular. All teams should strive towards balance on offense. We've seen this played out for nearly a decade now and secondly, you do need to play some defense to win a Super Bowl. There's a reason NE has been blown out by Baltimore twice and nearly so by the Jets in the playoffs while they could not beat the Giants nor even the Broncos last year. They couldn't stop the opposition enough to get by. You can't play matador defense and win trophies. And you'll see this played out again and sure enough, this time next year many of you will be clamoring about NE's lopsided regular season wins as amounting to something. To say this is simply about the QB is missing a lot IMO. Eli, Russell Wilson, Flacco - these guys have never been among the elite in passing stats. But they all had something in common - managing the offense, making big plays when it mattered and being part of a balanced offensive attack. Something Marino refused to allow. Something Manning has refused as well. Imagine, only one SB for Peyton in all his years of dominance. And that was before the passing rules were initiated that we have today.
It seems like everyone (in listening to the media) forgot about last year's SB. Did you not notice what happened to the offensive slant in that game? Pass-happy teams almost never win Super Bowls (unless they face each other) and I think the notion of top-level QB's being such a need in overblown. There have been exceptions but by and large, the better balanced teams almost always win out. Do you really think the Pats** are going to slow down Marshall Lynch right now? Not a chance. And the game management by Wilson coupled with that defense (which will render NE one-dimensional) will turn that game ugly in a hurry. Seattle can do it all. And will turn loose the dogs with their pass rush on top of it. Beyond this, with the salary cap, these top QB's are hogging such a high percentage of that cap that teams are finding it difficult to field a competent, balanced team. The Ravens haven't recovered since extending Flacco floundering in mediocrity while SF and Seattle have gone with QB's on rookie deals to spread the wealth to other positions and enjoying deep runs consistently. The Pats** and Broncos have always had holes and can't muster wins against physical teams. The Saints haven't gotten over the hump since extending Brees. Watch what happens to GB when they have to extend Rodgers in this market. Ditto for Rivers. And Roethlisberger as the Steelers have been in cap hell. They'll have to cut a bunch of players to keep Ben. One by one, these teams will have to sacrifice the balance of the team strengths only to fairly compensate their QB in today's market. Dalton's extension won't help them fill all the holes in Cincy in the future and they'll never be a SB threat.
So paint me skeptical as to the long-term success of pass-happy teams with their "star" QB's. To me, it hasn't translated into sustained SB threat status. It might get you some lopsided wins in the regular season, but whooop-dee-frickin-doo that's about it. Yesterday's game vs the Fagtriots should serve as a reminder that the Jets should stay the course on their quest to build a more balanced offense combined with solid, physical defense.
I believe you misinterpreted my comments about the running game with a great defense being no longer the an effective road to winning the super bowl. That was a point I put out there as a general comment on the state of football. No where did I say you believed that. I get the balanced team goes a long way to winning a super bowl. I agree with you 100% that a great QB on a mediocre team are not enough, there are tons of examples out there. In the year 2014 you still need an extraordinary qb back there to make it work. That said Seattle has a balanced team, the Pasties have a balanced team, the Packers have a balanced team. At the very worst you need a somewhat talented extraordinarily lucky qb to do it (Eli Manning) Is any of these three teams winning the Super Bowl if you put Geno Smith, Mark Sanchez back there ?... even (a step up) if you put a Jay Cutler or an Andy Dalton back there ? Nick Foles or Ryan Tannahill ? We could argue this until the cows come home but my belief is a no. You make an excellent point about a veteran qb sucking up too much cap and screwing up a team - Joe Flacco is a perfect example. We both know this, that is why Seattle was at a huge advantage with Wilson on his rookie deal. Yet SparklePony and Aaron Rogers are still on competitive balanced teams. Sparklepony gave the Pasties a below market deal until his last contract and they also don't give away too many stupid contracts. Seperately are the Pats* going to slow down Marshawn Lynch ? On paper no but funny how stuff plays out on actual game day. Last week the Jets with the third best running game in the NFL played the Titans which was then rated as the worst rushing defense in all of the nfl (it is now the second worst). You know the story, the Jets had a healthy oline with all their starters facing a no name defense In theory the Jets should have run all day long over the Titans. The did not get close to breaking 100 yards in rushing, they squeaked out a win against arguably the worst team in football. Thanks for the post. I don't really agree that GB & NE are balanced in that their defenses are that good. Neither can stop the run and only one can impose a running game if all is well. Speaking of which, the Jets cannot run on simply anyone as you correctly point out which necessitates the need for balance. They can't pass enough to keep safeties honest.
As for the Pats stopping Lynch, they absolutely can but at a price and Russell would make them pay dearly.
|
|
|
|
Post by gangrene on Dec 22, 2014 14:28:15 GMT -5
I think if Dan Connelly and Edleman makes it back the Pats will be a more dangerous scoring team, possible taking pressure off their questionable run defense by scoring earlier ... but it remains to be seen, right now the Hawks look like the hot hand.
I think without Edleman they don't have a realistic shot at going all the way.
|
|
