Ok, so let's say we kick it off to Hester and he runs it back for a TD. He's got, what, 3 TDs on special teams this year at least. Or what if he runs it back to the ~50 yrd line, which is where it ended up. What is your response then? "They shouldn't be kicking it off to Hester!" "Nugent sucks, he's got no leg." You're pissed that the Jets lost, so am I. But jeez. That play didn't cost us the game. Chad had moved the team down to the 25 on the subsequent drive before he threw his second TD. You should be more annoyed with the OL for about 3 or 4 false starts during the game (including one in the 4th quarter which forced us to punt with 6 minutes instead of going for it on 4th down). The onsides kick did not cost us the game!
This was the single best Offensive and Defensive game plan the Jets have had in 6 years. The Pennington INT and the lack of points after we killed them in the first half lead to a desperate move. The onside kick did not cost us the game, Pennington did.
Don't think I ever said it cost us the game. if You read my post (and quoted the entire post) you would see I said I was quite impressed with the teams effort and that it did not cost us the game. It was the 2nd best game we have played this year IMO. I was also impresed with the game plan. Now saying its the best game plan we have had in 6 years is quite silly ( Zero offensive points does not spell best offensive gameplan) and requires quite a lot of inhaling of Herm-hate weed. My advice is put the Bong down before posting Winston. You have so much hate I am afraid you are going to turn into a republican. But I did love the emphasis on establishing the run to take pressure off Chad early. You can't win every game and just because you don't win does not mean its anyones fault. Sometomes the ball bounces the wrong way. This is a game with a little bit of luck could have been a very easy Jets win.
i get what your saying but although it didnt COMPLETELY cost us the game, it was a big part because of the score of the game, if it was a high scoring game then I would not take it so seriously. I just dont see any purpose for that call. Wait so, doing an onside kick was a better option the kickin to hester? I think the chance of stopping Hester is more likely then recovering an onside kick. And Pennington was actually driving this team downfield for most of the first half only to throw bonehead ints to halt our drives. Pennington deserves alot of blame, but like I said that onside kick call had no reason or purpose at all. Its like Mangini had a "hey let me gamble" attitude.
It was a horrible call but it did not cost them the game. When your offense does not score any points, your offense cost you the game. Take off the 3 points and we still lose 7-0.
like i said the game situations in that game and in this game were totally different. Im never in favor of onside kicks in any situation except the obvious ones but I understand that colt game decision more then this one.
and if it worked do you say the same thing? It wasn't a good call, but I know if it worked you'd have a different opinion.
I don't mind an aggressive stance either, but Mangini didn't play that way the entire game. Why not throw the ball down the field at the end of the half if you feel like you need to be aggressive? There's no rhyme or reason to that FG call, and it absolutely sucked the life out of the D.
I got a good laugh out of this Buttle. Don't take offense because I actually enjoy trolls and you are terrific at it.
I would suggest that he was quite trusting of his players to a) try an onside kick and b) trust that his defense wouldn't wilt if the onside kick wasn't recovered. Again, the two Chad INT's had a lot more to do with this loss. out...
sorry i can't blame on that call, he 1) tried to jump start the O, 2) tried to catch the bears napping and 3) said if it doesn't work i have faith in my D... and he was rightful in doing so...they held them to 3 points and did the job...the game at worse should have been 3 - 3 at that point... a chad pick (earlier) and a drew colman slip were the difference...that onsides kick, nor many of manginis calls weren't the problem
yes, it only cost us 3 points. I'm not quite sure what your question is or how you are logically attempting to project that as the deciding factor of a two score game, especially when we didn't get 1 score. perhaps if we lost 10-7 you can say the kick cost us, but 10-0, no, it didn't, it simply made the final score a little higher. and I don't want to hear that it made it a 2 score game at the end of the game, thus it hindered our ability. the Jets had 60 minutes to score a fg, and the entire second half to make up the 3 points and couldn't. to say if it was only 7-0 at the end of the game the Jets would have magically summoned the ability to score is ludicrous.
