The Jets were just unlucky?

[TB=TD]

1.) Gronk going out was not a mistake. He lost a leverage battle and got pushed.

2.) Using 2 plays to justify the safety is ridiculous.

3.) Patriots Dbacks suck. Bad play there is expected, not "luck".


etc...

Nothing the Patriots did compares to Holmes falling down or Folk missing the chip shot. That stuff was on the first drive, when the Jets could have really established themselves early. What's more, people should know better about the chippie, since we saw how it impacted the Patriots when Gost did the same thing against the Giants.

The Jets couldn't get set on the field for plays, and were giving up wide open passes. Sanchez threw a pass that tipped off 2 players. etc.....


The Patriots won. They won convincingly. But, to pretend that a large part of the difference wasn't due to boneheaded plays and bad luck on the Jets side is silly, particularly after what we saw happen last year in the playoffs. With all the Jets screw ups, that was a game that the Jets were clearly in before Sanchez vapor locked with the timeout that gave Brady the extra time and timeout at the end of the half.

You must of picked the Jets because that book of excuses is disgusting.

 

[mvrabel50]

1.) Gronk going out was not a mistake. He lost a leverage battle and got pushed.

2.) Using 2 plays to justify the safety is ridiculous.

3.) Patriots Dbacks suck. Bad play there is expected, not "luck".


The Patriots won. They won convincingly. But, to pretend that a large part of the difference wasn't due to boneheaded plays and bad luck on the Jets side is silly, particularly after what we saw happen last year in the playoffs. With all the Jets screw ups, that was a game that the Jets were clearly in before Sanchez vapor locked with the timeout that gave Brady the extra time and timeout at the end of the half.

You could make the same type of arguements for all of the "lucky" plays the patriots had.

 

[Deus Irae]

You could make the same type of arguements for all of the "lucky" plays the patriots had.

There's a difference between a "mistake" that's out of the norm and something that happens due to the players on the field. Cromartie getting a PI call wouldn't be a persuasive argument for the Patriots getting lucky, but Mangold completely whiffing on a block would. Patriots defensive backs being so bad that they screw up wouldn't be a persuasive argument for the Jets being lucky, because the DBs (especially the safeties) suck, but Brady doesn't normally throw interceptions on a screen pass.

In the case of this last matchup, there were huge issues that went against the Jets. Folk doesn't normally miss from that close in, and Holmes doesn't normally lose his footing on that reception, just to point to a couple of examples.

The Patriots took advantage, and that's great. I'm just pointing out that people are reacting to this last game the way they reacted to 45-3 (hell, they're reacting to the "improvement" of the defense the way they did last year, too), and pointing out that it was fool's gold last season.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Carter
Gronk
Brady


Enough said

 

[Rob0729]

I'm sorry, if you lose by 3 TDs, it has nothing to do with luck unless there is a lot of freak scoring. If a handful of bad plays can make you lose by 21 points to a team you are supposed to be better than or evenly matched, then your team lacks heart and/or mental toughness.

I know Deus likes to play the contrarian role, but the simple fact is the Pats outplayed and outcoached the Jets in the second half.

 

[everlong]

The Jets were unlucky their GM traded a first, a second and three players for their crap QB.

 

[NEP4Life]

The Jets were unlucky their GM traded a first, a second and three players for their crap QB.

If you want to know how much of a bust Sanchez is, ask yourself what the Jets could get for him in a trade. A 4th? Maybe a 3rd? "Sanchize." LOL.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Jets were unlucky their GM traded a first, a second and three players for their crap QB.

Absolutely. Brady v. Sanchez is where the Patriots crush the Jets.

 

[mvrabel50]

There's a difference between a "mistake" that's out of the norm and something that happens due to the players on the field. Cromartie getting a PI call wouldn't be a persuasive argument for the Patriots getting lucky, but Mangold completely whiffing on a block would. Patriots defensive backs being so bad that they screw up wouldn't be a persuasive argument for the Jets being lucky, because the DBs (especially the safeties) suck, but Brady doesn't normally throw interceptions on a screen pass.

In the case of this last matchup, there were huge issues that went against the Jets. Folk doesn't normally miss from that close in, and Holmes doesn't normally lose his footing on that reception, just to point to a couple of examples.

The Patriots took advantage, and that's great. I'm just pointing out that people are reacting to this last game the way they reacted to 45-3 (hell, they're reacting to the "improvement" of the defense the way they did last year, too), and pointing out that it was fool's gold last season.

I understand what you're saying, I just wouldn't call it luck. The patriots made more plays than the Jets and made less mistakes.

Folk's missed fg was a mistake, sanchez's bad pass / catch on a screen was a mistake, sanchez's time out at the end of the first half was a mental mistake, pass interference on 3-14 was a pass interference (mistake).... i could go on.

I'm not saying that the patriots solved all their problems, just that they outplayed the Jets and that luck didn't have anything to do with it.

 

[BSR]

There's a difference between a "mistake" that's out of the norm and something that happens due to the players on the field. Cromartie getting a PI call wouldn't be a persuasive argument for the Patriots getting lucky, but Mangold completely whiffing on a block would. Patriots defensive backs being so bad that they screw up wouldn't be a persuasive argument for the Jets being lucky, because the DBs (especially the safeties) suck, but Brady doesn't normally throw interceptions on a screen pass.

In the case of this last matchup, there were huge issues that went against the Jets. Folk doesn't normally miss from that close in, and Holmes doesn't normally lose his footing on that reception, just to point to a couple of examples.

The Patriots took advantage, and that's great. I'm just pointing out that people are reacting to this last game the way they reacted to 45-3 (hell, they're reacting to the "improvement" of the defense the way they did last year, too), and pointing out that it was fool's gold last season.

I think you are trying to hard to make a distinction that really isn't all that meaningful. Missing a field goal is luck but stepping out of bounds isn't? Nonsense. The reality is that sometimes field goals get missed, even easy ones. Things like that happen in each and every game by both teams. Bad calls, strange bounces, uncharacteristic mistakes. They seem out of place in the context of that one individual player or game but overall the "lucky" plays are probably fairly consistent from game to game.

The loser's lament of "well that isn't going to happen again!" is probably true in the sense that that particular circumstance won't happen again, but chances are some other "luck" based adversity will. The question is how you react and recover from it. Good teams tend to deal with them better.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think you are trying to hard to make a distinction that really isn't all that meaningful. Missing a field goal is luck but stepping out of bounds isn't? Nonsense.

It's not nonsense at all. Gronk didn't just casually step out of bounds. He had help. I'm not sure what's so difficult about this stuff that people can't just admit to the obvious.

The reality is that sometimes field goals get missed, even easy ones. Things like that happen in each and every game by both teams. Bad calls, strange bounces, uncharacteristic mistakes. They seem out of place in the context of that one individual player or game but overall the "lucky" plays are probably fairly consistent from game to game.

"Lucky" plays are wildly inconsistent from game to game. You claiming otherwise makes me wonder if you've ever watched ANY sporting event.

The loser's lament of "well that isn't going to happen again!" is probably true in the sense that that particular circumstance won't happen again, but chances are some other "luck" based adversity will. The question is how you react and recover from it. Good teams tend to deal with them better.

The loser's lament, as you put it, got the Patriots beaten in the playoffs last season. You can keep just sticking your head in the sand, or you can look at what happens in games and try to actually analyze it.

If Holmes doesn't slip, it's 7-0 Jets. If Folk doesn't miss the gimme, it's 3-0 Jets. In either case, that would have led to a much different start to the game, and we have no idea how things would have gone from there. You can pretend that such things don't matter. History has proven otherwise, time and time again.

 

[BSR]

It's not nonsense at all. Gronk didn't just casually step out of bounds. He had help. I'm not sure what's so difficult about this stuff that people can't just admit to the obvious.

To me its seemed that Gronk lost track of the back of the end zone and mistakenly stepped out. Even if that isn't the case you are arguing that an undersized saftey forcing Gronk out of bounds isn't uncharacteristic. Either set of circumstance is about as unlikely as missing a chip shot field or a WR falling down.

"Lucky" plays are wildly inconsistent from game to game. You claiming otherwise makes me wonder if you've ever watched ANY sporting event.

They are inconsistent in their form but not frequency. When was the last time you saw a game that a losing team fans didn't think they had unlucky plays against them?

The loser's lament, as you put it, got the Patriots beaten in the playoffs last season. You can keep just sticking your head in the sand, or you can look at what happens in games and try to actually analyze it.

If Holmes doesn't slip, it's 7-0 Jets. If Folk doesn't miss the gimme, it's 3-0 Jets. In either case, that would have led to a much different start to the game, and we have no idea how things would have gone from there. You can pretend that such things don't matter. History has proven otherwise, time and time again.

That isn't "analysing" a game. That is hypothetical crap that has no meaning what so ever. I don't know what you think history has proven but it certainly hasn't proven anything with regards to playing the "what if" game.

Last years playoff game wasn't lost because of luck. It was lost because key players (Brady, Crumpler, Chung) made big mistakes. It had nothing to do with luck. And you have the audacity to say that I have my head in the sand?

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

It's not nonsense at all. Gronk didn't just casually step out of bounds. He had help. I'm not sure what's so difficult about this stuff that people can't just admit to the obvious.



"Lucky" plays are wildly inconsistent from game to game. You claiming otherwise makes me wonder if you've ever watched ANY sporting event.




The loser's lament, as you put it, got the Patriots beaten in the playoffs last season. You can keep just sticking your head in the sand, or you can look at what happens in games and try to actually analyze it.

If Holmes doesn't slip, it's 7-0 Jets. If Folk doesn't miss the gimme, it's 3-0 Jets. In either case, that would have led to a much different start to the game, and we have no idea how things would have gone from there. You can pretend that such things don't matter. History has proven otherwise, time and time again.

There is always a combination.

Yeah, we are very unlucky to have the Douche Awry post here.

However, we magnify our unluck by continually letting him post and engage his posts.

 

[Gwedd]

I said this in another thread. I have been listening to WFAN and NY ESPN Radio and reading the message boards and there is an overwhelming sentiment that the Jets outplayed the Patriots and if it wasn't for dumb luck or mistakes, the Jets win and win big. And this is not just coming from the fans, it is coming from the media and players too. None of them want to give the Pats any credit.

Apparently, they all went to sleep in the second half where the Pats clearly outplayed them on both sides of the ball.

Denial isn't a river in Egypt.......

 

[Betterthanmost]

Same thing I have been saying about that playoff win. Alge does not drop that TD, we punt the ball, we.... arghh.

 

[Rob0729]

Same thing I have been saying about that playoff win. Alge does not drop that TD, we punt the ball, we.... arghh.

Although that game wasn't as close as the score indicated, the Pats lost by one TD not three. In a game that is won by one score is more likely to be affected by a handful of plays than a game where the game was decided by 3 TDs.

 

[Deus Irae]

To me its seemed that Gronk lost track of the back of the end zone and mistakenly stepped out. Even if that isn't the case you are arguing that an undersized saftey forcing Gronk out of bounds isn't uncharacteristic. Either set of circumstance is about as unlikely as missing a chip shot field or a WR falling down.

Receivers get bumped out of bounds all the time.

They are inconsistent in their form but not frequency. When was the last time you saw a game that a losing team fans didn't think they had unlucky plays against them?

Your making one argument and claiming it's another. The turnover variance alone disproves your claim.

That isn't "analysing" a game. That is hypothetical crap that has no meaning what so ever. I don't know what you think history has proven but it certainly hasn't proven anything with regards to playing the "what if" game.

No, it's analyzing a game. Some people may just throw out "Refs suck", but that's not what I was getting at. And history has been conclusive on this matter in sport after sport, not just in football. If you can't see that, that's on you.

Last years playoff game wasn't lost because of luck. It was lost because key players (Brady, Crumpler, Chung) made big mistakes. It had nothing to do with luck. And you have the audacity to say that I have my head in the sand?

Go back and read my posts. I wasn't just talking about random fortune.

And, yes, I do have the 'audacity' to say you have your head in the sand. But, to be fair, that's only because you seem to have your head in the sand.

 

[Deus Irae]

Same thing I have been saying about that playoff win. Alge does not drop that TD, we punt the ball, we.... arghh.

Absolutely. If Brady doesn't toss that terrible INT. If Alge doesn't drop that easy TD. If....

It doesn't take much to completely change the outcome of a game.

 

[fnordcircle]

If I wanted to read Jets fans posts I'd be over at the forum.

I wish people would stop importing this stuff here, I really don't care what some random fan says about his team and I'm not sure why others would.

 

[BSR]

Receivers get bumped out of bounds all the time.

And kickers miss field goals all the time and WRs sometimes trip; yet you think those are luck. Your distinction between what is luck and what isn't is meaningless.

Your making one argument and claiming it's another. The turnover variance alone disproves your claim.

All turnovers are luck now? So Ninko didn't make a great play, he was just lucky? I think you are having a hard time even reconciling what is and isn't luck in your own mind.

No, it's analyzing a game. Some people may just throw out "Refs suck", but that's not what I was getting at. And history has been conclusive on this matter in sport after sport, not just in football. If you can't see that, that's on you.

Conclusive on what matter? Show me this proof.

Go back and read my posts. I wasn't just talking about random fortune.

And, yes, I do have the 'audacity' to say you have your head in the sand. But, to be fair, that's only because you seem to have your head in the sand.

Apparently I have my head in the sand in thinking that there is a level of variance in the performance of athletes. The true reality is that some variance is actually luck and the distinction is based on a secret set of criteria that can only be determined by specific fans who were given the special decoder rings. The process of identifying luck is called analysis and has been proven conclusively by history by those who have identified the luck. Its not a cicular argument at all, history has proven it and anyone who doesn't recognize it has their head in the sand. I'm sure that made perfect sense to you.