Shotty costs the Jets points again
Coach Lon
long run down inside the Buffalo 20. We then miss a short FG, and I
have to blame Shotty on another weak offensive play call, when we have
a chance to go up 14 points before the Bills even touch the ball. So
frustrating. This is the NFL 2010---throw the damn ball!!!
Rant over.
Harlan Lachman
<670f34da-ddd8-4f73...@28g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Coach Lon <coac...@gmail.com> wrote:
John C, I feel your pain. 38 points and a missed field goal. Two, 100
yard runners. No interceptions. Even a Brad Smith TD. I guess Shotty did
real badly today.
harlan
MZ
Like I said last week when the Pats also put up 38 points on them, the
team did well partly because the players' execution was so good and
partly because the Bills D is so horrendous.
Today's playcalling was awful (at least in the first half, which is all
I watched), including the decision to run on 3rd and long on the second
series. I really wish he'd stop that, especially now that Sanchez has
demonstrated that he can get things done in the passing game. Another
one was the throw at the goal line. Not the worst play call in the
world, but given the context (the Bills crappy run D), the call took
sure points off the board.
Coach Lon
> In article
> <670f34da-ddd8-4f73-8496-74ce7a881...@28g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Coach Lon <coach...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So after a brilliant first drive, the Jets stall after a weak 3rd and
> > long run down inside the Buffalo 20. We then miss a short FG, and I
> > have to blame Shotty on another weak offensive play call, when we have
> > a chance to go up 14 points before the Bills even touch the ball. So
> > frustrating. This is the NFL 2010---throw the damn ball!!!
>
> > Rant over.
>
> John C, I feel your pain. 38 points and a missed field goal. Two, 100
> yard runners. No interceptions. Even a Brad Smith TD. I guess Shotty did
> real badly today.
>
> harlan
Why I shouldn't blog when on a rant. Yes, we poured it on today-
however, that 2nd possession early provided the Jets an opportunity to
go up double digits before the fans had a chance to get settled. It's
frustrating to watch obvious conservative play calling when it's clear
they could go for the jugular early.
Delighted we blew them out-Buffalo is not on the same level as the
Jets.
John C TX
> In article
> <670f34da-ddd8-4f73-8496-74ce7a881...@28g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > So after a brilliant first drive, the Jets stall after a weak 3rd and
> > long run down inside the Buffalo 20. We then miss a short FG, and I
> > have to blame Shotty on another weak offensive play call, when we have
> > a chance to go up 14 points before the Bills even touch the ball. So
> > frustrating. This is the NFL 2010---throw the damn ball!!!
>
> > Rant over.
>
> John C, I feel your pain. 38 points and a missed field goal. Two, 100
> yard runners. No interceptions. Even a Brad Smith TD. I guess Shotty did
> real badly today.
>
> harlan
H, thanks, I knew someone would chirp in.
:)
It is amazing how smart an OC looks when players catch the ball, QB's
make the right decision, etc.
John C TX
It shoudl have been 20-0 at halftime. You always take the points.
Maybe you throw it with 3rd & 6 but LT averaged 7 yards a carry
yesterday. Maybe you don't pass it 3 & goal from the 1 but you take
the points.
John C TX
> On 10/3/2010 5:20 PM, Harlan Lachman wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > Coach Lon<coach...@gmail.com> wrote:
MZ, if we are talking about the same series I didn't like the throw in
the end zone (2Q) but if you saw on one down Slausson knocked LT over
because Slauson can't move. So if they score a TD because the players
execute then it is a good drive?
As for running on 3rd & long, well, I think the team philosophy is not
to make a mistake. If you run on 3rd & long doesn't that occasionally
open up when you do pass? I don't want to see it every time but it
has its place especially with LT.
Tutor
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wasn't a big fan of using the wildcat down at the gola line.
Yeah... I know it worked, but we would be screaming our heads off and
stomping Schott to the ground if it didn't work and put the game in
jeaopardy,
John C TX
I was a bit taken aback but pleased with Smith's patience.
I forgot to mention that if Sanchez didn't force the ball in to Keller
on the 1st successful FG drive, but passed to Hartsock who was wide
open, then the offense looks even that much better.
JetsLife
> On 10/3/2010 5:20 PM, Harlan Lachman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > Coach Lon<coach...@gmail.com> wrote:
For someone as astute as you, this is a surprisingly nutty post.
MZ
Weird. I was thinking, for someone as nutty as me, it was a
surprisingly astute post. :)
I'd like to point out again that I didn't see the 2nd half, btw. For
all I know, the playcalling was absolutely brilliant. I'm talking about
the first half. Let's recap.
* Drive 1: brilliant drive. Almost like it was scripted beforehand. :)
* Drive 2: ST gives them the ball in good field position. 3rd and 6 run
predictably doesn't convert. Folk misses.
* Drive 3: 3 and out
* Drive 4: 3 and out
* Drive 5: nice drive, ends with a FG because they decided to throw on
3rd and 1 at the goalline. This is after runs of 7, 6, 7, and 5 yards.
* Drive 6: 3-play TD drive.
* Drive 7: end of half (but curiously, they run LT in garbage
time...explain this one to me)
Overall, it was a good half for the offense against an absolutely
terrible defense. Can't complain about 17 points. But two drives were
stalled directly because of the play call. Schott does not take into
account context when he's calling a game. This is an ongoing problem.
It's not so bad against defenses like Buffalo's and New England's, but
don't expect it to work against defenses like the Ravens. And I'd watch
out for the Vikings this week, who have been playing solid defense.
JetsLife
Lol on the nutty-astute bit. I think I'm actually nutty-astute.
Drive 2: "predictably doesn't convert"? How many times have we seen
running plays work on 3rd down? Sure 3rd & 6 is long yardage, but 3rd-
down running plays can work. I was unhappy with the call, but if it
works I'm happy. Regardless 3rd & 6 inside the red zone can be tough
to convert.
Drive 3: so what.
Drive 4: so what.
Drive 5: Sure running is the safe call, but what if he doesn't get it?
The Jets aren't the best short-yardage team around.
Drive 6: Enough said.
Drive 7: IMHO not using your best players early in the game creates a
"non-competitive" atmosphere to quote Parcells. He said that in '98
after the Jets beat the Bills to clinch the division and No. 2 seed.
They had nothing to play for v. NE that last game, but Parcells
started and played his entire team. Starters should play until the
game is 100% decided. You don't want to put in a Joe McKnight at the
end of the first half, and it's too risky to run T-Rich or The
Terminator. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the
team if you insert McKnight? It's non-competitive thus dangerous to
take out any starter before the matter is decided.
In sum: 17 points, one missed FG, *zero turnovers*, dominant TOP. I'll
take a 1st half like that any day v. any team.
Michael
<SNIP>
> Overall, it was a good half for the offense against an absolutely
> terrible defense. Can't complain about 17 points. But two drives were
> stalled directly because of the play call. Schott does not take into
> account context when he's calling a game. This is an ongoing problem.
Exactly. Fancy and elaborate SINGLE plays that dont seem to be part
of a larger dive building thought process. at times it also apppears
that the nature of the defense is also not taken into consideration...
for example... the slow developing benind the los stuff being called
against a speed defense like the colts. it is not smart to call lots
of different stuff all the time and expect it to work because it is
"unpredictable" to do so...
> It's not so bad against defenses like Buffalo's and New England's, but
> don't expect it to work against defenses like the Ravens. And I'd watch
> out for the Vikings this week, who have been playing solid defense.
the vikes should make a much better test... still... if the jets want
to make it to the superbowl, they have to score on teams like the
ravens and the steelers. both of those teams have top notch defense
and they can also score points. we saw what the jets o did against
the ravens. they can say what they want about that now they have
things opened up on offence, but the facts are in the books. they
could not score against the ravens even with short fields all night.
MZ
> down running plays can work. I was unhappy with the call, but if it
> to convert.
Sure, they convert, but not as often as they fail. Hopefully someone
with stats can prove me wrong, and show that the Jets 3rd down % running
the ball exceeds the rest of the league's 3rd down % passing, but I
don't think so. I think running on 3rd and long is a lower percentage
play. Yet, as Dierdork said when it happened, Schott does it all the
time. I'm all for unconventional, but this tendency just doesn't make
any sense.
> Drive 3: so what.
> Drive 4: so what.
> Drive 5: Sure running is the safe call, but what if he doesn't get it?
> The Jets aren't the best short-yardage team around.
That's a fair point, but against Buffalo everybody is a good short
yardage team. :)
BTW, I would have probably gone for it on 4th down in that position
(though I acknowledge that's on Rex, not Schott). If they had gone for
it on 4th down, then a throw on 3rd down would have made more sense.
> Drive 6: Enough said.
> Drive 7: IMHO not using your best players early in the game creates a
> "non-competitive" atmosphere to quote Parcells. He said that in '98
> after the Jets beat the Bills to clinch the division and No. 2 seed.
> They had nothing to play for v. NE that last game, but Parcells
> started and played his entire team. Starters should play until the
> game is 100% decided. You don't want to put in a Joe McKnight at the
> end of the first half, and it's too risky to run T-Rich or The
> Terminator. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the
> team if you insert McKnight? It's non-competitive thus dangerous to
> take out any starter before the matter is decided.
I was thinking about Greene. See my post yesterday about sparing LT's
legs in a long season.
>
> In sum: 17 points, one missed FG, *zero turnovers*, dominant TOP. I'll
> take a 1st half like that any day v. any team.
Against Buffalo, that's like par for the course. :)
John C TX
This is fair they could have taken a shot at the end zone or thrown
it out but let me throw something at you.
He also could have taken a sack and made a sure thing--was wind a
factor--and ended up out of FG range. Against weaker teams you always
take the points because you will get the ball back & it wears them
down. I have to believe Schott gets input before the game on this.
> * Drive 3: 3 and out
Sanchez throws 2 incompletions & fumbles the ball. Schott's fault?
> * Drive 4: 3 and out
Greene was stuffed on a 3rd & 1.
> * Drive 5: nice drive, ends with a FG because they decided to throw on
> 3rd and 1 at the goalline. This is after runs of 7, 6, 7, and 5 yards.
This is the one where Hartsock was wide open in the end zone & Sanchez
forced it to Keller. Is he wrong when he throws it or runs it in short
yardage? Sanchez even brought it up in the press conference.
> * Drive 6: 3-play TD drive.
> * Drive 7: end of half (but curiously, they run LT in garbage
> time...explain this one to me)
It was stupid. Take a knee
>
> Overall, it was a good half for the offense against an absolutely
> terrible defense. Can't complain about 17 points. But two drives were
> stalled directly because of the play call. Schott does not take into
> account context when he's calling a game. This is an ongoing problem.
> It's not so bad against defenses like Buffalo's and New England's, but
> don't expect it to work against defenses like the Ravens.
I will tell you that you are reading too much Papa
:)
or you sound like most fans-- not just jets fans. It is the OC. It
is on the aspect of the game where a choice is most obvious, usually
pas or run.
We had 7 drives in the first half with 3/7 ended in points & 4/7
should have ended in points. One drive that ended in a FG should have
been a TD. Even if you kick a FG every time 4/7 will get you 23+
points a game.
The problems we have had this year have come from execution &
penalties not bad play calling.
>And I'd watch
> out for the Vikings this week, who have been playing solid defense.
We shoudl be worried about the Vikings as they can pressure the QB. I
don't know much about their LBers or secondary outside of Winfield
but they shut down a good Saints & Fins team.
MZ
> down. I have to believe Schott gets input before the game on this.
If this wasn't a recurring theme, I'd consider that there was some sort
of strategy like that involved. FWIW, they were on the 12.
>> * Drive 3: 3 and out
>
> Sanchez throws 2 incompletions& fumbles the ball. Schott's fault?
No, but when he made great throws (or great pump fakes or playactions)
was this Schott's doing? People seem to be casting aside any issues
with the playcalling based solely on the result -- 17 points in the
first half. As if that's proof that the playcalling was good. Can't
have it both ways.
MZ
> The key to me, in the resurgence of the offense, is that the players are getting more of a
> chance to make plays. Schott has scaled back all the pre-snap motion, and may be focusing
> a bit more on the actual plays. I've seen more well-designed plays recently.
> But, I still think as you mentioned, he lacks a sense of when plays may be most effective.
> And gets into these brainlock/cutesy streaks in games.
> I'd love to see him call a complete 60 minutes... hopefully, sometime in February ;)
I was never that concerned with the pre-snap stuff, and the play design
seems to be reasonable. My problem has been the situational play
calling. Also, he doesn't make in-game adjustments. It's like they
come at halftime, maybe from the big guy or maybe he has a delay in
using his squash. I guess halftime adjustments are better than no
adjustments.
John C TX
They missed a 30 yard FG what am I missing? My point as always is
that this is a team decision meaning how Rex wants to play.
>
> >> * Drive 3: 3 and out
>
> > Sanchez throws 2 incompletions& fumbles the ball. Schott's fault?
>
> No, but when he made great throws (or great pump fakes or playactions)
> was this Schott's doing?
No, that is my point. Most times when people scream in here about
Schott it is a result of bad execution.
btw Sanchez was also late on a long throw to Cotchery who had to
slow down & come back to teh ball. That would have gone for a TD in
the 1st half.
>People seem to be casting aside any issues
> with the playcalling based solely on the result -- 17 points in the
> first half. As if that's proof that the playcalling was good. Can't
> have it both ways.
I am not casting aside all issues. Mark, you are a bit inconsistent &
not really in line with what happened. Near the goal line they passed
and Hartsock was wide open. That was a a bad call? 3rd & 1 & they
run it. That was a bad call?
A local talk radio guy was talking about fans and offensive
coordinators yesterday. They are just too easy a target.
MZ
You may be right. I don't know which member of the coaching staff is at
fault for it. I use "Schott" as shorthand for "whoever calls the
offensive plays." I'll acknowledge that it might be on Rex.
But... they threw a lot in this game (err...the half I saw). So I don't
think the training wheels are on anymore. So, that means it's unlikely
that Rex is directing Schott to run-run-run. Either Rex is saying to
specifically run on 3rd downs, or this is Schott being immune to the
concept of "situational". I guess both are possible, but the likelihood
of a run-on-3rd-and-long strategy seems odd to me.
>> People seem to be casting aside any issues
>> with the playcalling based solely on the result -- 17 points in the
>> first half. As if that's proof that the playcalling was good. Can't
>> have it both ways.
>
> I am not casting aside all issues. Mark, you are a bit inconsistent&
> not really in line with what happened. Near the goal line they passed
> and Hartsock was wide open. That was a a bad call? 3rd& 1& they
> run it. That was a bad call?
>
> A local talk radio guy was talking about fans and offensive
> coordinators yesterday. They are just too easy a target.
I'm not being inconsistent -- I never said running on 3rd and 1 was a
bad call. I said running on 3rd and long was a bad call. Biiiig
difference. I'd run on third and short against the Bills all day long.
John C TX
I am not totally disagreeing with you. I would like to know the logic
there. Did they just want 3 more?
>Biiiig
> difference. I'd run on third and short against the Bills all day long.
No you said passing on 3rd down by the goal line was bad & on that
play Hartsock was wide open. I was pointing out they ran on 3rd & 1 &
got stopped.
MZ
> play Hartsock was wide open. I was pointing out they ran on 3rd& 1&
> got stopped.
Oh I see. That's true, but they also passed on 3rd and 1 and got
stopped too. :)
John C TX
> with Sanchez passing & less presnap garbage).
The facts don't bear that out. We have gone from 60% pass to 60% run.
Ryan showed up & said we are running the ball. The formations changed
dramatically last year with the inclusion of Hunter on the field for a
good number of plays and that was mid-season. You want to bitch about
Schott, Ryan or Callahan (my bet is that one of the last two made that
decision) that was the one. That guy getting hurt is the best thing
that happened to our offense this year. A guard lining up as a TE
regularly is just too stupid.
> The same *situational* issues were apparent, before Rex got here.
> Many of us were posting about Schott's *picking plays from a hat* approach, before Rex got
> here.
> So, unless Mangini & Rex have the same offensive philosophy, who do you think calls the
> plays?
> That's not to say that Rex doesn't participate in gameplan decisions, etc.
> But, to me, Rex woke up after the Ravens game, and has started to realize he's the HC, and
> needs to be more involved with the O. I think the benching of Green after the fumbles,
> was his wake-up call. He seemed genuinely, almost taken aback, after the game. Which
> again suggests, he was delegating too much, & too focused on the D.
> He also stepped in last season, to simplify things for Sanchez, which got him settled for
> the playoffs. I think this time, he stepped in and said, let the kid play.
> Obviously, I'm filling in blanks, as we don't know everything, but it all makes logical
> sense to me, taking into account what's been reported, what Rex has said, and Schott's
> pre-Rex history.
MZ
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:57:25 -0400, buRford<buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:52:03 -0400, MZ<ma...@nospam.void> wrote:
>>
>> The key to me, in the resurgence of the offense, is that the players are getting more of a
>> chance to make plays. Schott has scaled back all the pre-snap motion, and may be focusing
>> a bit more on the actual plays. I've seen more well-designed plays recently.
>> But, I still think as you mentioned, he lacks a sense of when plays may be most effective.
>> And gets into these brainlock/cutesy streaks in games.
>> I'd love to see him call a complete 60 minutes... hopefully, sometime in February ;)
>
>
>
> "I’ll take some of the rap for that,' Schottenheimer said. "What happened that night is
> not a short answer. When you have six months to prepare for a game, sometimes you have a
> tendency to over-analyze. We had some calls in there where we send Mark to the line with
> two plays, and he runs a play dependent on what defense he sees. That didn’t go too well
> that night. When we were analyzing the game afterward, Mark said to me, ‘Hey Schotty, can
> we eliminate those kills?’ [A 'kill' is the play you eliminate to go to the other play
> called.] He just wanted to have a play called and let him execute it. I said, ‘Sure,
> Mark.’ And that’s what we’ve done."
>
>
> They've also eliminated some of the presnap BS, so now MS& the players are just focusing
> on executing plays. And Schott can focus on one play, rather than two.
> I'm sure there were other factors, too.
> As for Schott... a big man be he, taking "some of the rap" for his offense's suckitude ;)
IOW, he's passing the buck. He's saying that Sanchez couldn't handle it.