Would HAVE....could HAVE...


Geezus...it's not that difficult.

---

Down by 5 with 2 minutes left, the onside kick is the right decision, for the reasons mentioned.  Also, you need time to mount a longer touchdown drive, not just get into field goal range.

---

But you would not have had the chance for immediate recovery and possession.

 

And at midfield with the same amount of time on the clock.

---

because the return team can just call fair catch if you kick it in the air

 

I meant more along the lines of kicking it over heads to say the 45 line in the below scenario.

 

---

If Poz falls on that fumble, nobody is asking this question

Yep. That was the break. Telvin did his part.


Poz and Joeckel falling point blank on loose balls only to have Jets players end up with them makes me sick.

---

I understand the part about the Jets not having a kicker, but their punter was good on his PAT and FG attempts. He could have scored on that drive if the Jets were able to get close enough. If that happened we would all be mad at Gus Bradley for calling an onside kick before the two minute warning. However, because the Jets could not run the ball all day, it was a smart decision to trust our defense to keep them out of field goal range.

---

I like the onside kick strategy especially with the score. 

 

#1 If it works, you get control of the ball rightaway

#2 if it does not work, you have stop them in three downs which is the case as well if we don't do onside kick

#3 The Jets are without kicker, so field goal option might fail if we stop them and still get good field position

 

The key for the jags to come back is to stop the jets. With onside kick you have an option of not even attempting to stop the jets and if it fails you can still attempt and win and get the ball back. Thats the right call in my view (situational football, Jets without kicker, point diff 23-28 one possession game with Jets successful field goal). 

 

There's also the possibility of changing the mindset of the offense. If we kicked and they got the ball at the 20, the Jets *might* have been more aggressive with their playcall knowing that if they just run-run-run, we'd get the ball at a great field position.

 

Whereas being midfield, they were conservative knowing we'd have to drive the length of the field against their good defense with no timeouts.

---

Had they kicked it deep, I have  no doubt that Bklyn would have started a thread ripping them for doing that.  It's great to be able to play both sides of the fence.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Had they kicked it deep, I have  no doubt that Bklyn would have started a thread ripping them for doing that.  It's great to be able to play both sides of the fence.

 

Yeah, but they should of kicked it deep.  They shouldn't of kicked the onside.

 

Did I do that right?

---

Yeah, but they should of kicked it deep.  They shouldn't of kicked the onside.

 

Did I do that right?

You might of done it right.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Time for class.

 


A common mistake is to write the word of instead of have or the contraction 've:

I could of told you that.

instead of:

I could have told you that.

or alternatively:

I could’ve told you that.

The reason for the mistake is that the pronunciation of have in unstressed contexts is the same as that of of, and the two words are confused when it comes to writing them down. The error was recorded as early as 1837 and, though common, is usually considered unacceptable in standard English.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

Sorry...that one just irritates me.

---

Had they kicked it deep, I have no doubt that Bklyn would have started a thread ripping them for doing that. It's great to be able to play both sides of the fence.

Nope, kicking it deep, would of given us a better chance of taking the lead in my opinion.

---

Out of curiosity...how do you of?

---

Nope, kicking it deep, would of given us a better chance of taking the lead in my opinion.

Unless they did it, and it didn't work.  Then you'd be starting this thread saying we should "OF" kicked the onside kick.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Unless they did it, and it didn't work. Then you'd be starting this thread saying we should "OF" kicked the onside kick.

Honestly, the onside kick didnt even pop up into my head. With the 2 minute warning and one timeout, i thought it was a no brainer. What do you think?

---

Out of curiosity...how do you of?

I'm pretty sure it's like this

 

 

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

I'm pretty sure it's like this

 

 

Love that show

---

Unless Could is a person from somewhere

 

then OF is OK

 

lulz

---

Anyone who questions the onside kick is a kindergartener

---

GO Jaguars
;