All those blowouts really helped the Pats in 07. I think we may get a blowout this week against Houston. They don't matchup well at all against the Jets.
Of course not, and the article takes pains to point that out. But the tendency of SB champions is to dominate once in a while. That's all...
This is not an average year. This year's league parody is at its all time high. Many games are going into OT and are played down to the wire. We are fortunate to have gone 7-2 so far, and we are slowly getting better. The Jets can still have not blossomed and "made their run" yet, and in a way, thats the great part this.
And not to mention the fact that Rex and Schotty are stubborn and stick with the run even when they are stacking up against it. I'm not worried frankly, I think we will start scoring more points the rest of the way. As Rex said in the press conference, Sanchez has started to look downfield more in his progressions. We have the playmakers to score and will..
You missed my edited post. The historical blowouts are likely an indicator of a team executing well in all phases which we haven't done lately. The blowouts themselves aren't the important part, it's executing in all phases on a consistent basis.
Can't argue with that. We need to show we can do that, and I think we will. Plus, I think Sanchez is proving to be a clutch player, as are a lot of other guys, that's a hard stat to pin down..
I did not read the actual article. I hate this "N.F.L.", "A.F.C." crap. It's "NFL" and "AFC". C'mon, New York Times editors- stop trying to be cute. Anyway, I did read the first 10 comments following the blog entry. (I'll read the rest later.) This was the best one so far-
Look at the 1986 Giants through 9 games. 7 wins, 2 losses They opened with a Monday night loss. Then they won five straight. One was a blowout. Then they lost a squeaker. Then they won two straight. Seems somewhat similar to the 2010 Jets through 9 games. The Giants did not start blowing out teams till December. 1986 Giants 9/8- lost to Cowboys 28-31 9/14- Chargers 20-7 9/21- Raiders 14-9 9/28- Saints 20-17 10/5- Cardinals 13-6 10/12- Eagles 35-3 10/19- lost to Seahawks 12-17 10/27- Redskins 27-20 11/2- Cowboys 17-14 11/9- Eagles 17-14 11/16- Vikings 22-20 11/23- Broncos 19-16 12/1- 49ers 21-17 12/7- Redskins 24-14 12/14- Cardinals 27-7 12/20- Packers 55-24 playoffs 1/4/87- 49ers 49-3 1/11- Redskins 17-0 1/25- Broncos 39-20 I remember in October and November of that year that a lot of people thought the Giants were not as great as their record may have indicated they were due to the fact they were winning close games as opposed to blowing teams out.
I live in Houston and I can say as a Texans fan also that the Jets will beat the Texans by at least 2 touchdowns. The Texans are a lot worse than their record indicates. I was hoping coming into the season that both the Texans and Jets would make the playoffs, but the Texans defense is the worse that I've EVER seen and I really do mean that. This is a week that the Jets offense will get their rhythm going. Don't be fooled either by the Texans run defense numbers. The run defense is just as bad as the pass defense. Its pretty sad down this way right now.
I think what stats and records are not showing is that with the exception of Buffalo ALL the teams we've played were playing VERY GOOD football when we played them. Some of them were not playing good at some point in the season, but when they played the JETS they were on their game, some like Detroit, Cleveland and Green Bay were coming off some big wins.
Agree. How we play the rest of the way, and if we start separating ourselves from lesser teams is a better indicator of playoff success than the first 9 games. So far, the Jets have dominated their division like the '86 Giants did, that will be the big no matter what the scores of those games.. But the Times article did focus on the first 9 games and whether the teams were within 3 points of each other in the 4th qtr. Not sure where the 86 Giants would have fit in that scenario...
