kmd24 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 They almost lost to the Jets?The Jets scored 17 of their 24 points on a kickoff return, fumble return, and a FG off an interception where they didn't get a yard after the pick. Much like the Redskins-Giants game, the only reason they were in the game was the Giants' mistakes and ineptitude. Looking at the play-by-play, it looks like the Jets had the ball in Giants territory on 5 of 6 drives in the first half. They managed to miss a shortish FG and throw a pick, or the game might have been a bit different at the half. In the second half, the Jets went three-and-out on their first offensive possesion, but then drove to the Giants 23 before turning the ball over on another bad interception. To the Giants' credit, they capitalized on mistakes late in the game, but up until the second Pennington interception, the Jets had moved the ball reasonably well, to the tune of 246 yards on 7 "real" drives through three quarters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzSkinsFan63 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Seem to be the real team to beat in the NFC East so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzSkinsFan63 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Seem to be the real team to beat in the NFC East so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eli to Burress Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Looking at the play-by-play, it looks like the Jets had the ball in Giants territory on 5 of 6 drives in the first half. They managed to miss a shortish FG and throw a pick, or the game might have been a bit different at the half.In the second half, the Jets went three-and-out on their first offensive possesion, but then drove to the Giants 23 before turning the ball over on another bad interception. To the Giants' credit, they capitalized on mistakes late in the game, but up until the second Pennington interception, the Jets had moved the ball reasonably well, to the tune of 246 yards on 7 "real" drives through three quarters. You could do that with every game though. I could look at the Skins/Cards game and wonder how they held on to win that game. The stats favor the Cards. Int the Eagles/Skins game the Eagles seem to spend the whole 4th quarter on the Skins side of the field trying to punch it in. In the end though, the Skins came away with the victory so they must have done something right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eli to Burress Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Looking at the play-by-play, it looks like the Jets had the ball in Giants territory on 5 of 6 drives in the first half. They managed to miss a shortish FG and throw a pick, or the game might have been a bit different at the half.In the second half, the Jets went three-and-out on their first offensive possesion, but then drove to the Giants 23 before turning the ball over on another bad interception. To the Giants' credit, they capitalized on mistakes late in the game, but up until the second Pennington interception, the Jets had moved the ball reasonably well, to the tune of 246 yards on 7 "real" drives through three quarters. You could do that with every game though. I could look at the Skins/Cards game and wonder how they held on to win that game. The stats favor the Cards. Int the Eagles/Skins game the Eagles seem to spend the whole 4th quarter on the Skins side of the field trying to punch it in. In the end though, the Skins came away with the victory so they must have done something right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmd24 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 You could do that with every game though. I could look at the Skins/Cards game and wonder how they held on to win that game. The stats favor the Cards. Int the Eagles/Skins game the Eagles seem to spend the whole 4th quarter on the Skins side of the field trying to punch it in. In the end though, the Skins came away with the victory so they must have done something right. I don't think anyone said something like "Much like the Redskins-Giants game, the only reason they were in the game was the Giants' mistakes and ineptitude." about either of those games. It's pretty clear that the Jets were competitive against the Giants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmd24 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 You could do that with every game though. I could look at the Skins/Cards game and wonder how they held on to win that game. The stats favor the Cards. Int the Eagles/Skins game the Eagles seem to spend the whole 4th quarter on the Skins side of the field trying to punch it in. In the end though, the Skins came away with the victory so they must have done something right. I don't think anyone said something like "Much like the Redskins-Giants game, the only reason they were in the game was the Giants' mistakes and ineptitude." about either of those games. It's pretty clear that the Jets were competitive against the Giants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Look the skins had that game going into the half. The giants didn't beat the skins that day. The skins shot themselves as usual. They are so over-rated. I can't wait to see them again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Look the skins had that game going into the half. The giants didn't beat the skins that day. The skins shot themselves as usual. They are so over-rated. I can't wait to see them again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doncherry Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I'd say the Redskins & Giants are a lot more physical then the Cowboys. The Cowboys are definately a finesse team and don't take kindly to being punched in the face by the opposing team. have you watched Dallas play? Finesse? They have the largest OL in the league and Marion Barber runs like a beast, and his physicality is contagious. Just because a team likes to throw the ball doesn't mean that they are not physical. I would say that it is virtually impossible to separate any of the top 3 teams in the NFC East based on their tendency to play physical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doncherry Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I'd say the Redskins & Giants are a lot more physical then the Cowboys. The Cowboys are definately a finesse team and don't take kindly to being punched in the face by the opposing team. have you watched Dallas play? Finesse? They have the largest OL in the league and Marion Barber runs like a beast, and his physicality is contagious. Just because a team likes to throw the ball doesn't mean that they are not physical. I would say that it is virtually impossible to separate any of the top 3 teams in the NFC East based on their tendency to play physical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiSupaFlyNuka Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Look the skins had that game going into the half. The giants didn't beat the skins that day. The skins shot themselves as usual. They are so over-rated. I can't wait to see them again. I can't wait for the Boys to come to the Meadowlands. Oh, and the Skins too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiSupaFlyNuka Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Look the skins had that game going into the half. The giants didn't beat the skins that day. The skins shot themselves as usual. They are so over-rated. I can't wait to see them again. I can't wait for the Boys to come to the Meadowlands. Oh, and the Skins too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NY1 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I don't think anyone said something like "Much like the Redskins-Giants game, the only reason they were in the game was the Giants' mistakes and ineptitude." about either of those games. It's pretty clear that the Jets were competitive against the Giants. With all those drives the Jets had, their offense scored SEVEN points. Sure, they missed a FG, but they still were responsible for only 25% of the points they scored in that game. I think it's fair to say the reason the Jets were competitive was because the Giants were inept on special teams and made 2 horrendous turnovers... one turnover went from a first down run to a TD return for the Jets and the other was as clear an example of Tom Coughlin being clueless as I've ever seen. I know I'm a Giants homer, but I feel the same way about the Giants-Skins game. The Skins scored 7 points due to solid play by their offense. They were handed 10 points by the Giants due to a turnover they recovered 6 yards from the end zone and a FG where they didn't even get/need a 1st down prior to the kick. If the Giants could've cut down on mistakes, the opposing teams wouldn't have scored as many points as they did. Those games were competitive, but only due to Giants' mistakes and ineptitude IMO. While the other teams deserve credit for forcing turnovers, it's alarming when they don't have to do anything in order to score points because the turnover occurred so deep in your own territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NY1 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I don't think anyone said something like "Much like the Redskins-Giants game, the only reason they were in the game was the Giants' mistakes and ineptitude." about either of those games. It's pretty clear that the Jets were competitive against the Giants. With all those drives the Jets had, their offense scored SEVEN points. Sure, they missed a FG, but they still were responsible for only 25% of the points they scored in that game. I think it's fair to say the reason the Jets were competitive was because the Giants were inept on special teams and made 2 horrendous turnovers... one turnover went from a first down run to a TD return for the Jets and the other was as clear an example of Tom Coughlin being clueless as I've ever seen. I know I'm a Giants homer, but I feel the same way about the Giants-Skins game. The Skins scored 7 points due to solid play by their offense. They were handed 10 points by the Giants due to a turnover they recovered 6 yards from the end zone and a FG where they didn't even get/need a 1st down prior to the kick. If the Giants could've cut down on mistakes, the opposing teams wouldn't have scored as many points as they did. Those games were competitive, but only due to Giants' mistakes and ineptitude IMO. While the other teams deserve credit for forcing turnovers, it's alarming when they don't have to do anything in order to score points because the turnover occurred so deep in your own territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueinBuf Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I don't know about y'all but I am not as impressed with this team as everyone else seems to be. In their last 4 weeks they have played maybe the 4 worst teams in the NFL, with maybe the exception of the iggles, but the Jets, Falcons, and 49ers are definentely not good. And now next week against Miami, they play a team that is a shell of its already bad team. The Dolphins have lost Trent Green, traded their best receiver, and have now also lost Ronnie Brown. The Giants are playing the worst of the worst, and everyone is acting like they're the best all of a sudden. I don't understand it, people were talking of them not even winning a game this year, and now they're going to the superbowl. People are saying it's because their defense is playing better, but they have not played a team that can take advantage of their weaknesses in about 4 weeks. They have a terrible secondary, all you have to do is block usi and strahan, and you can kill them all day. LOL all you have to do is block osi and strahan, guess what that is a lot easier said than done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueinBuf Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I don't know about y'all but I am not as impressed with this team as everyone else seems to be. In their last 4 weeks they have played maybe the 4 worst teams in the NFL, with maybe the exception of the iggles, but the Jets, Falcons, and 49ers are definentely not good. And now next week against Miami, they play a team that is a shell of its already bad team. The Dolphins have lost Trent Green, traded their best receiver, and have now also lost Ronnie Brown. The Giants are playing the worst of the worst, and everyone is acting like they're the best all of a sudden. I don't understand it, people were talking of them not even winning a game this year, and now they're going to the superbowl. People are saying it's because their defense is playing better, but they have not played a team that can take advantage of their weaknesses in about 4 weeks. They have a terrible secondary, all you have to do is block usi and strahan, and you can kill them all day. LOL all you have to do is block osi and strahan, guess what that is a lot easier said than done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiSupaFlyNuka Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 LOL all you have to do is block osi and strahan, guess what that is a lot easier said than done. Don't forget Tuck and Kiwi... Nevermind the occasional Blitz from Pierce and Ross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiSupaFlyNuka Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 LOL all you have to do is block osi and strahan, guess what that is a lot easier said than done. Don't forget Tuck and Kiwi... Nevermind the occasional Blitz from Pierce and Ross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I'm not gonna bash the Giants, because they have already won more games than I thought they would this year, but "dominating" is a strong word. They dominated the Trent Dilfer led 49ers, but they almost lost to the Jets. They played well against the Falcons too, but dominated? C'mon.[/Quote]They outscored the Jets 28-7 in the second half. The Jets scored on a KO return for a TD otherwise that game is won by 17. And I think beating the Falcons 31-10 can be considered dominated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom [Giants fan] Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I'm not gonna bash the Giants, because they have already won more games than I thought they would this year, but "dominating" is a strong word. They dominated the Trent Dilfer led 49ers, but they almost lost to the Jets. They played well against the Falcons too, but dominated? C'mon.[/Quote]They outscored the Jets 28-7 in the second half. The Jets scored on a KO return for a TD otherwise that game is won by 17. And I think beating the Falcons 31-10 can be considered dominated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmd24 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 With all those drives the Jets had, their offense scored SEVEN points. Sure, they missed a FG, but they still were responsible for only 25% of the points they scored in that game. I think it's fair to say the reason the Jets were competitive was because the Giants were inept on special teams and made 2 horrendous turnovers... one turnover went from a first down run to a TD return for the Jets and the other was as clear an example of Tom Coughlin being clueless as I've ever seen. Why do the Giant mistakes count but the Jets don't? Since we're playing the could've/should've/would've game, I think I'll claim that the Jets would have won going away if they had scored rather than turning the ball over twice in Giants territory. In the end, it took a big pass play (with a missed tackle - another Jets mistake) late in the game (8:00 remaining) and *another* interception to seal the deal. For every costly mistake the Giants made, the Jets made one just as costly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmd24 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 With all those drives the Jets had, their offense scored SEVEN points. Sure, they missed a FG, but they still were responsible for only 25% of the points they scored in that game. I think it's fair to say the reason the Jets were competitive was because the Giants were inept on special teams and made 2 horrendous turnovers... one turnover went from a first down run to a TD return for the Jets and the other was as clear an example of Tom Coughlin being clueless as I've ever seen. Why do the Giant mistakes count but the Jets don't? Since we're playing the could've/should've/would've game, I think I'll claim that the Jets would have won going away if they had scored rather than turning the ball over twice in Giants territory. In the end, it took a big pass play (with a missed tackle - another Jets mistake) late in the game (8:00 remaining) and *another* interception to seal the deal. For every costly mistake the Giants made, the Jets made one just as costly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboysSaintsFan Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Why do the Giant mistakes count but the Jets don't? Since we're playing the could've/should've/would've game, I think I'll claim that the Jets would have won going away if they had scored rather than turning the ball over twice in Giants territory.In the end, it took a big pass play (with a missed tackle - another Jets mistake) late in the game (8:00 remaining) and *another* interception to seal the deal. For every costly mistake the Giants made, the Jets made one just as costly. Who cares? Bottom line is that as much as it pains me to type this, the Giants are awefully dangerous now. While I feel we match up with them very well, our next meeting at the Meadowlands scares me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboysSaintsFan Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Why do the Giant mistakes count but the Jets don't? Since we're playing the could've/should've/would've game, I think I'll claim that the Jets would have won going away if they had scored rather than turning the ball over twice in Giants territory.In the end, it took a big pass play (with a missed tackle - another Jets mistake) late in the game (8:00 remaining) and *another* interception to seal the deal. For every costly mistake the Giants made, the Jets made one just as costly. Who cares? Bottom line is that as much as it pains me to type this, the Giants are awefully dangerous now. While I feel we match up with them very well, our next meeting at the Meadowlands scares me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.