Sanchez may not recover....
Michael
you take a man/woman and put them into a job that requires them to
perform and compete... And... good performance in a shark tank is
sustained not only by skill and experience, but by skill and
experience combined with... SELF CONFIDENCE...
So... Say you train them... All the time... "Not to make mistakes".
And... You stick them in a working system that you title somthing like
"careful caution safety" instead of "Bombs Away Bingo !" Then you put
them into the shark tank... Gulp...
I'm tellin ya... This kids head may go up the spout for good unless he
gets proper teachers. You can see that they are training him to wet
the bed instead of training him to make other people worry about what
he is gonna do to them.
papa.carl44
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5d7a5505-9dd4-4f80...@j13g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
I absolutely agree. I could site other QB's that I think have had this
happen to them...but that would only be speculation and I really didn't
follow them that closely. What I have seen is this happen to a kid who had
poor coaches at a critical time in their development. I saw kids transfer
into the school I worked at who had been in bad situations....they recovered
but were never what they may have been.
Ritchie
Agree 100%. They are going to screw up this kids head! You can tell he
already is confused at times out there.
Grinch
> you take a man/woman and put them into a job that requires them to
> perform and compete... And... good performance in a shark tank is
> sustained not only by skill and experience, but by skill and
> experience combined with... SELF CONFIDENCE...
>
> So... Say you train them... All the time... "Not to make mistakes".
> And... You stick them in a working system that you title somthing like
> "careful caution safety" instead of "Bombs Away Bingo !" Then you put
> them into the shark tank... Gulp...
Yup, if Sanchez had 30 picks at this point after being told to go play
"Bombs Away Bingo" his morale would be so much better! And everyone
would be so happy with the OC. :-)
As it is, he's a victim of the formula that ruined young Flacco in
Balt and young Ben in Pitt. And that Lombardi and Noll and Parcells
used to ruin one team after another and break the self-confidence of
all their sensitive young players.
You guyz are just making this stuff up.
Not that I doubt for a moment that Sanchez is developing a confidence
problem.
But it's from the coaching -- it's got the same cause as the
confidence problems suffered by Harrington, Leaf, JaMarcuss, Nagle and
Clemens: having a 53% completion rate and thinking "Oh my God, I
threw another one!" three times a week.
> I'm tellin ya... This kids head may go up the spout for good unless he
> gets proper teachers.
The guy's got the league-bottom completion % two years running, a
career negative TD-pick rate including 8-12 in the last eight games,
and the big problem is *he's not throwing enough* -- he'd be playing
Bombs Away Bingo with the proper teachers. In a "win now" season.
And that it's not happening is proof of how bad the coaches are.
Go figure.
papa.carl44
"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7c5f6b9d-93c2-4325...@k3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Go figure.
So...let me get this straight or at least understand your position Grinch.
You are saying it is all the players? They flat out stink? I can
understand that, if it is what you are saying. The coaches to at least some
extent picked those players, and they actually went out on a limb to get
some of them, put a lot of work into it. But if it is not coaching, it has
to be just poor performance by capable players, or just flat out lousy
football players. I'm interested, which is it?
Grinch
wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:5d7a5505-9dd4-4f80...@j13g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Not just football mind you... Any walk of life... What happens when
> > you take a man/woman and put them into a job that requires them to
> > perform and compete... And... good performance in a shark tank is
> > sustained not only by skill and experience, but by skill and
> > experience combined with... SELF CONFIDENCE...
>
> > So... Say you train them... All the time... "Not to make mistakes".
> > And... You stick them in a working system that you title somthing like
> > "careful caution safety" instead of "Bombs Away Bingo !" Then you put
> > them into the shark tank... Gulp...
>
> > I'm tellin ya... This kids head may go up the spout for good unless he
> > gets proper teachers. You can see that they are training him to wet
> > the bed instead of training him to make other people worry about what
> > he is gonna do to them.
>
> I absolutely agree.
On what evidence? Everybody seeing Rex and Schott cruelly breaking
Sanchez's confidence during all those Hard Knocks episodes?
Really, can anyone name a kid QB who's been *more coddled and
supported* by his coaches than Sanchez?
The formula: "use the big running game, good D, stick to safe passes"
is a proven one for developing young QBs and reclaiming old ones from
Flacco and Ben back through Tuna-Testeverde, Shula-Griese & Morral,
Lombardi-Starr.
And those coaches didn't go on HBO every week and make sure the camera
caught them saying "the kid's coming along.... the kid's getting
better ... the kid's going to be a good one!"
Yet now all this is supposed to destroy a QB's self confidence, and
the coaches who use it are inept? Hello??
You know *some* young QBs come into this league and actually have
tough jobs -- they don't land on a team with a top D, top running game
to use, and coaches who never, ever say anything but kind words about
them.
They wind up on teams like the 1-15 Rams, 0-16 Lions, 2-14 Raiders,
3-13 Colts, and when they produce league-bottom numbers for two years
they get their butts sent to the bench by people like Al Davis,
instead of having the HC declare "No matter, he's my QB forever!",
like Rex just said after Sanchez produced his 40 passer rating
yesterday.
But Sanchez is having his self confidence destroyed because he can't
play "Bombs Away Bingo" with his 53% completion rate.
Boo hoo hoo.
papa.carl44
Boo hoo hoo.
So this is all about flat out lousy players...either talented guys not
performing, or guys with no talent? Just explain it to me. BTW...how has
the Al Davis routine been working out of late? I don't think Sanchez is
particularly good...and I was one of those who was not in favor of drafting
him...but the fact is he IS the QB...and the coaches wanted him. This melt
down is way more than just Sanchez....are they all crappy players? I'm
serious, I want to understand this.
papa.carl44
"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:2bfbaca6-a895-4d99...@m35g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Boo hoo hoo.
Grinch...we don't really disagree that much...and if we were face to face we
would probably not argue about this at all...I do not think the style Rex
uses is a good one....all the BS and talk is not good. I never thought it
was a good idea to take Sanchez, but when they do he's the one to play with,
so you need to do something that works...they got rid of the running game
that worked, including a lineman that at least got it done on sweeps
etc...the guy could pull. They got rid of the tough ground and pound RB and
they added a whole bunch of WR's.....so whose decisions are making this
mess? Are the rest of the players that bad? I don't think the D looks so
hot either.
Tutor
wrote:
> "Grinch" <oldna...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
why must it be all one or all the other? What does this 'all or
nothing' stance accomplish? We've got big time coaching problems from
the top down and we've got big time personnel problems as well,
including lack of talent, lack of effort, lack of football smarts on
the field and lack of common sense off the field. There's enough bad
stuff to go around for all!
Grinch
I'm saying it is patent nonsense to claim that the Harbaugh-Flacco,
Cowher-Ben, Parcells, Noll, Shula, Lombardi method of developing young/
reclaiming old QBs -- "use the running game, rely on the defense,
*don't* make mistakes" -- is a bad one that destory's the QB's self-
confidence.
But if you are asking the different question of how much of Sanchez's
performance is on Sanchez versus how much is on Schott and Rex, IMHO,
here's MHO:
Take Ryan Leaf and Joey Harrington versus Peyton Manning and Tom
Brady.
How much of the difference between them was due to their different OCs
and HCs, and how much was due to *them*?
Then take the 66% completion rate of Pennington/Favre and the 52% rate
of Clemens.
How much of that difference was on *them*, and how much was on Schott
as the OC of Penny & Favre versus Clemens having Schott as his OC?
That's how much of Sanchez's 53% completion rate is on Sanchez, IMHO.
>They flat out stink? I can
> understand that, if it is what you are saying. The coaches to at least some
> extent picked those players, and they actually went out on a limb to get
> some of them, put a lot of work into it. But if it is not coaching, it has
> to be just poor performance by capable players, or just flat out lousy
> football players. I'm interested, which is it?
There's a real big gap between "flat out stink" and "Super Bowl
favorites".
I think just the same as I wrote some weeks ago:
The Jets are a pretty good team. The players are pretty good on the
whole. The early w-l was exaggerated on the good side because they won
more than their share of close games, and close games are mostly luck.
But that's pretty much evened out, 9-4 seems fair to me -- and 9-4 is
pretty good, contender.
The D has slipped some from last year but only because last year it
was #1 dominating at everything, that never happens two years in a
row. It's still very good. It got wiped by the Pats but they're the
best O in the league, they just wiped out a pretty good D in Chicago
too.
The D wasn't at fault yesterday, holding an NFL offense (OC'd by
Henning) to 5 of 19 passing for 55 yards, with 5 sacks, and 131 total
is plenty damn good -- I don't care if the QB was Henne.
The offense is so-so. But with the D having slipped some the O has to
be better than last year. The running game is pretty good, but not as
good as last year because last year's 3 backs were better than this
year's 2. But it's still pretty good. The O line has been very good,
at least until Woody got hurt -- now we'll see, The WRs are a lot
more talented than last year, if a bit erratic and prone to the
dropsies. (If Holmes holds on to the one that bounced off him in the
end zone the papers might be telling an entirely different story
today.) But they have talent.
Nobody "flat out stinks" on this team or is anywhere close to it --
except, unfortunately, the one guy who is most important, Sanchez. In
the last 8 games he's hit 52%, has 8-12 tds-picks, and has a passing
rating of 65. That flat out stinks. Period. It's a fact.
Schott may be a bad OC, I don't know, I've never said he was a good
one.
But even if he sucks, still the top three problems on this offense are
Sanchez, Sanchez, Sanchez.
Rex said today that the team will go as far as Sanchez takes them.
He's right, they've tied their cart to the kid.
Maybe he'll get better. Eli flat out stunk in his second year and got
a lot better later. But the Giants weren't trying to "win now" in his
second year.
Sanchez had better get better in his next three games. If he does
they can do a lot in the postseason. If he doesn't...
Eli made a big jump for the better at the very end of 2007, so it can
happen, there's always hope.
That's my ever-humble opinion, FWIW.
papa.carl44
"Tutor" <dcat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f1a46e9a-88c3-46c4...@p38g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
OK....WE agree...but I read that coaching was not the problem...the thing
with this "email" newsgroup crap is that it is a terrible way to
communicate....Grinch was referring to players issues....I don't think you
can take a bunch of guys who should be able to perform and have them do as
poorly as they are and not think it is the coaching....I don't think it is
all lack of talent though, we may differ there....too many very
knowledgeable guys felt like the Jets built the team with the right parts,
something has gone wrong. I saw a lot more effort earlier in the year
too....now, they just look confused and almost like they are mailing it in.
It is never any one thing, but it can always have a focus point...and a key
element that goes bad. At one point it looked clearly like it was the
offense, now the D seems to have issues too, but no where near as bad as
offense. I think they gave away the ground and pound scheme...they are not
built for that now.
papa.carl44
Well...we don't disagree all that much. And Eli is taking a huge step
backwards of late....when I first saw Carson Palmer I thought he was very
good...then he got hurt, and never came back. The reality is they made
conscious decisions to build the current team around Sanchez, the
acquisition of the WR's etc. I still think it was not a good idea to let TJ
go. The decisions they made though, seem to be coaching decisions...Rex
included and perhaps beyond Rex...and not very good ones.
Grinch
> would probably not argue about this at all...
Maybe I'll get a chance to buy you a beer someday and we'll find out.
When you smash a bottle over my head we'll know. :-)
> I do not think the style Rex
> uses is a good one....all the BS and talk is not good.
I'm inclined to agree with that, but he got real good results last
year -- that D improvement was tremendous -- and the first 11 games
this year. Every HC deserves the chance to do it his own way. If
he's going to be held accountable for the results he should be able to
do things the way he wants.
The test for a HC is when things go wrong. I'd think that test would
be even tougher a showboat like Rex, but so far he hasn't been tested,
all the big breaks have gone his way. Maybe they're starting to go the
other way now and we'll find out.
But my ideas of how a HC should behave are probably wrong anyhow.
I read two bios of Lombardi, and when he and Landry were both coaching
for the Giants they were the most mirror-image opposites possible.
Tall/short, thin/fat, immigrant Catholic/Wasp, hothead/iceman, keep is
simple stupid/great innovator, dummy it down in the classroom so the
stupidest could understand/not let 'em into the classroom unless they
passed an IQ test, and everything else forever. The only thing they
had in common was they both got tremendous results. There's no one
right way.
Pro football is such a tough, physical game, played in general by,
um,"non intellectuals", that I wouldn't believe a coach who acted like
a professor could succeed -- but Bill Walsh. I wouldn't believe that
a rolly polly muffin man who was made fun of by his players could be a
winner -- but Ewbank won two NFL titles then toppled the NFL while his
players publicly called him Eub Dweebank and Ewwwwb and a lot of other
things.
One never knows.
>I never thought it
> was a good idea to take Sanchez, but when they do he's the one to play with,
I, and I think MZ (where is he now?) believed that in light of his
slight college experience and youth the Jets should've picked up a
competent ball-control caretaker QB to give Sanchez time to break
in.
During the year I heard Jeff Garcia say he'd have been happy to do
that with the Jets but they weren't interested, so he went to Oakland
to do the same thing for them, but then had a fight with Crazy Al and
quit. If he'd started for us last year we'd have had a lot less
picks and more completed passes, he wouldn't have "carried" the team
but with that great D we'd probably have won 11 or 12, then ended in
the playoffs just like they did. Sanchez would've had time to carry a
clipboard and learn. Would it have made a difference for this year?
Who knows?
The point is the Jets bet the house on Sanchez from day one, in spite
of his total inexperience, and that's always risky. Leaders have an
obligation to always have a Plan B. Tuna's biggest mistake was
betting the house on Testeverde in1999 after getting to the conference
championship in '98, blowing the salary cap on FAs at every position
except backup QB. Then Vin breaks his ankle in game one -- so Tuna
had to jump straight to Plan D, sign Rick Mirer. And Testeverde was no
naif rookie!
I've gotta think there's so much verve in some anti-Schott quarters --
I mean, beyond the normal mantra of "lynch the OC" that all NFL fans
often enjoy -- because there's no Plan B at QB anywhere in sight. An
OC can be replaced, but if Sanchez is the problem we lose the house,
we are totally screwed, so it has *gotta* be the OC.
When the Giants signed Eli they bet the franchise on him but still
signed Kurt Warner to keep him company at the start. We should've
done something like that.
> so you need to do something that works...they got rid of the running game
> that worked, including a lineman that at least got it done on sweeps
> etc...the guy could pull. They got rid of the tough ground and pound RB and
> they added a whole bunch of WR's.....so whose decisions are making this
> mess?
I don't criticize O play calling because I don't know whether calls
are good or bad.
The basic test for judging that is what the D is doing, but even
though I Tivo all the games 90% of the time I can't see that. I don't
see the coach's films.
Absent that, if I say "Schott shoulda done this" I'm saying not only
that I'm smarter than Schott but also that I'm smarter than the
opposing DC. Because if dumb amateur me watching TV can think of why
to run a given play a pro DC isn't going to think of that too, right?
Though if he does, and sets to stop it, then my call is wrong. (And
Schott's not doing it is right.)
Where am I then? Wherever, I think most everybody else is there with
me whether they know it or not.
So I've never said that Schott is either good or bad, because I don't
know.
But I am very confident that no OC in the league these days is
*incompetent* as so many describe Schott. The days when owners hired
drinking buddies for coaching jobs, and big-name ex-players to sell
tickets (Harry Wismer hiring Sammy Baugh) are long gone. Owners and
HCs have *way way* too much money at stake today to risk hiring any OC
who isn't totally competent.
That doesn't mean some aren't better than others. Some fit in certain
situations better, some fit certain players better than others, they
may relate better or worse to other coaches and players, Mike Martz is
great with some kinds of players not so good with others, some can
take advantage of working for a top quality organization (Pats) others
can't (Bengals) etc.
There are differences to be sure. But the quality range does not run
from "great" to "incompetent". The NFL is *extremely* competitive,
the quality of the coaches is bunched together. There are no
incompetents (at least not since Herm finally got the boot) and there
are no bonehead OCs. So even if Schott is one of the lesser ones, he
ain't *that* bad, as some say (even responsible for the D
collapsing!) I am quite confident of that.
And one can't judge competence just by watching play results. That's
like going the dice table, seeing others bet on 7 and lose, then
betting on 2 and winning, and concluding "Ah, boneheads follow the
crowd and bet on 7, us smart people know snake-eyes is the smart
bet!". One can't judge a play call by the play's results -- bad or
*good* -- unless one knows *why* the result occurred, which gets us
back to needing the coach's tape. And judging an OC by "tempo ...
rhythm ... having a smart plan" and things like that is just totally
subjective bunkum.
Unrealistically high expectations also compound things. 9-4, after
all, is pretty good -- 25 of 32 teams are worse. Most of those teams
would happily trade places to be in the Jets' mess.
> Are the rest of the players that bad?
IMHO most of the players are pretty good, as I noted just before --
except for one.
Reality check: What's *the* problem with the O?
When your QB has the league-bottom pass completion rate your offense
is going to have the shortest drives in the league, because the pass
completions needed to make first downs are going "clang" into the
ground or flying over somebody's head -- when not being picked.
That's arithmetic. There is no way around it. You could bring Bill
Walsh back from the dead to be your OC, with Sid Gillman and Don
Coryell as his assistants, and they couldn't change it.
And they too would have to restrain the QB's options and playbook to
keep that completion % at least as high as possible, however low that
might be, constraining the entire O.
That's why Walsh said the most important skills in a QB are accuracy,
accuracy and accuracy.
There's only one systematic, persistent problem with the Jets: the
linch-pin of the entire offense at QB who has a 65 passing rating for
the last 8 games.
Unfortunately, he's the one player on the entire team for whom there
is no Plan B.
>I don't think the D looks so
> hot either.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Grinch
wrote:
>
> Well...we don't disagree all that much.
Aw, c'mon, you're taking the fun out of this.
Where's the brass knuckles and broken bottles?
:-)
papa.carl44
:-)
Never needed 'em....could always just take care of business :-)
I never thought the team deserved the hype...I do think they have some great
individual talent, and they screwed up with the O line progress and losing
TJ....what do I know?
Michael
> That's why Walsh said the most important skills in a QB are accuracy,
> accuracy and accuracy.
sancez can thow an accurate ball. we have all seen more then just a
few amazing passes from him. the schotty system calls for exrtanious
pre-snap motion while the qb tries to figure out what the defense will
do. we have a young qb who is not put to a task using his strenght.
he's being used as if he were a pocket passer with ten years of
experience. schotty has not figured out how to run an offense that
takes advantage of sanchez's strengths. it puts him up against his
weakness... his lack of experience.
brilliant...
walsh would be creaming his pants over sanchez... he would not be
running the crap shotty is... that is for sure...
dont take it personal... i did not say that you suck... i said schotty
does.