Re: The Verdict is in...
yoyodog
"buRford" <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
news:tlbfh6ta12rds1cd4...@4ax.com...
> The SOJ lives.
> An undermanned D, with Rex' scheme figured out by OCs.
> Poor ST play.
> And an O game plan devised in some other universe.
>
> I realize the usual suspects will say the O wasn't a problem, but a smart
> game plan
> would've taken advantage of Shonn Greene, slowed the game down & kept
> Cutler off the
> field. Too much passing & too much LT, played into the Bears' hands.
> And that last play to Holmes... I knew it was coming, since we've done it
> all year. So, I
> suspect the Bears did. It was a great pass by MS, but the Bears were
> ready for it.
> They had the lead, & the ball entering the 2nd half. LT was in for no
> reason, and the O
> did nothing. Then, of course, Rex stepped in with the fake point.
> But, if they actually moved the ball to start the 2nd half, it might've
> been different.
> Just too much passing, & LT... dumb.
>
> Oh well... hopefully, there'll be some pass rushers in the draft.
> And we'll have a new OC.
> As for the playoffs, at this point I could care less.
> This was the game to win, they didn't.
Generally agreed but it wasn't that bad. This game was lost with that
stupid fake and failed 4th down
Denise Cohen
> The SOJ lives.
> An undermanned D, with Rex' scheme figured out by OCs.
> Poor ST play.
> And an O game plan devised in some other universe.
>
> I realize the usual suspects will say the O wasn't a problem, but a smart game plan
> would've taken advantage of Shonn Greene, slowed the game down & kept Cutler off the
> field. Too much passing & too much LT, played into the Bears' hands.
> And that last play to Holmes... I knew it was coming, since we've done it all year. So, I
> suspect the Bears did. It was a great pass by MS, but the Bears were ready for it.
> They had the lead, & the ball entering the 2nd half. LT was in for no reason, and the O
> did nothing. Then, of course, Rex stepped in with the fake point.
> But, if they actually moved the ball to start the 2nd half, it might've been different.
> Just too much passing, & LT... dumb.
>
> Oh well... hopefully, there'll be some pass rushers in the draft.
> And we'll have a new OC.
> As for the playoffs, at this point I could care less.
> This was the game to win, they didn't.
Hey I don't disagree, but the proimary reason for today's loss is on
the defense. Martz picked it to pieces in the 3rd qtr on top of the
fact that our guys just don't tackle well.
Glenn Greenstein
> The SOJ lives.
> An undermanned D, with Rex' scheme figured out by OCs.
> Poor ST play.
> And an O game plan devised in some other universe.
>
> I realize the usual suspects will say the O wasn't a problem, but a smart game plan
> would've taken advantage of Shonn Greene, slowed the game down & kept Cutler off the
> field. Too much passing & too much LT, played into the Bears' hands.
> And that last play to Holmes... I knew it was coming, since we've done it all year. So, I
> suspect the Bears did. It was a great pass by MS, but the Bears were ready for it.
> They had the lead, & the ball entering the 2nd half. LT was in for no reason, and the O
> did nothing. Then, of course, Rex stepped in with the fake point.
> But, if they actually moved the ball to start the 2nd half, it might've been different.
> Just too much passing, & LT... dumb.
>
> Oh well... hopefully, there'll be some pass rushers in the draft.
> And we'll have a new OC.
> As for the playoffs, at this point I could care less.
> This was the game to win, they didn't.
O scores 27 point and add a TD by the D and it's still on the O.
I really think I've had it with this place.
Glenn Greenstein
> Stop the melodrama ;)
OK Burf, if that's how you want it.
MuahMan
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 16:36:12 -0500, "yoyodog" <NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >"buRford" <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
> first series of the 2nd half.
But you're an idiot. You have shitty receivers with stone hands and a
pretty damn bad QB.
Harlan Lachman
<3f61bb6b-cb5b-4ea1...@j29g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Denise Cohen <spooky...@gmail.com> wrote:
I completely disagree.
I posted these same points, in a better, more succinct post but the
reasons this team loses are:
1) Coaches who play inferior personnel: LT instead of Shonn, Eric Smith
instead of anyone, JT not getting reps which go to Pace and BT, Mulligan
and Hartsock as eligible receivers on a team with Cotch, Holmes,
Braylon, Keller, LT, etc.
2) Using players in ways that trigger our intent to the other team or
minimize our players' strengths: Holmes running slants clogging up
Keller who does not go deep, kicking to Hester when we had successfully
avoided doing so and did not have to, not going for it on 4th down when
we needed to (6 min left on 4th down inside their 40) but going for it
with little risk reward, maximum blitzes on third and long to give up
huge plays, etc., etc.)
3) Having inferior personnel at key positions. We have no pass rushing
DL and no pass rushing OLB except JT and too often he sits on the bench
or plays in coverage. Our safeties are still not executing in Rex's D
whether they be Pool, Dig, Smith, and Leonhard on deep passes.
Those are the reason this team does not deserve to take up space in the
playoffs and may still fail to make them. If we get in, be prepared to
be an easy out unless we get an easy first game matchup.
harlan
Harlan Lachman
buRford <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 16:36:12 -0500, "yoyodog" <NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> Everyone's going to say that, but to me it's what led to that decision... an
> impotent
> first series of the 2nd half.
What about Holmes and Keller's key drops? What about being pussies and
playing not to lose by punting with less than 6 minutes left, inside
their forty (we never got that close again)?
The fake punt as poorly designed as it was and offering a horrific risk
reward equation (we were winning, we were at our 40 and not theirs so
even if we made it were like 40 yards from a FG), was not the reasons
this team lost.
A failure of preparation, strategy, use of personnel and poor execution
all conspired to waste Jets fans' time on this (and other) Sundays.
Besides which, we have some major personnel weaknesses before the Jets
can be taken seriously.
h
papa.carl44
Sanchez threw very well...the Bears are good against the run...which should
have really limited LT...he just does not have the pop now. Overall, the O
scheme was far superior to most of the season...really good at some times.
A dumb decision by Rex, and a dropped ball made the difference
today...albeit, a defense that is in serious trouble with no pass rush and
apparently no way to develop one. If the O decides to work the middle of
the field both deep and short it takes a lot of the stuff Rex does out of
the equation, puts LB's into coverage and they have NO rush whatsoever.
papa.carl44
> People have different opinions, so stay & except them, or go.
> That's all.
> But staying, & always putting people down for having differing views, or
> threatening to
> leave, come on.
>
> You look at the score and say the O wasn't the problem.
> I look at the team the Jets are, the weather, the opponent, the Jets D,
> and the weather
> conditions.
> All those suggests, to me, that the O gameplan was suicide.
> Ball control... slow the game down... limit Cutler touches, keep the D off
> the field, give
> the ball to Shonn... and just play football (ie: limit the cuteness).
Burf, I gotta disagree with you here. They had no way of stopping Cutler
and Rex knew it...with NO pass rush and being out schemed by Martz Rex did
the only thing left...let the O score, and Sanchez played better than he has
maybe all season...the O scheme was a Hell of a lot better, it had some
purpose to it. I would still criticize them for looking to get something
out of LT, who looks old and definitely a step slower than even a month ago,
and a couple bad probably Rex decisions. I even think they ran the wildcat
much better....Smith didn't screw up on that pass...receivers need to
complete the play...a lot of them don't, they seem to slow down prematurely
if it doesn't develop as fast as they think...at any rate, letting him throw
at that point was a good decision, but I'd have done it from the basic
wildcat setup, him in shotgun....the D was totally confused and lost...they
have no scheme to make up for no pass rusher, and offenses have figured them
out...they took Revis and Cromartie out of the game. With a good rusher,
someone good on the inside and a really good coverage LB like Urlacher and
they have something going again. Leonhard not being there hurts too I
think, he may have been soft at times, but when he hit a guy they knew they
were hit. OMHO. Papa Carl
John C TX
> In article <amdfh6hutss30cgqssc50lnv52414h1...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 16:36:12 -0500, "yoyodog" <NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
All year we punt at 4th and short inside the other teams 50 but the
play worked if Smith catches the ball.
> A failure of preparation, strategy, use of personnel and poor execution
> all conspired to waste Jets fans' time on this (and other) Sundays.
> Besides which, we have some major personnel weaknesses before the Jets
> can be taken seriously.
We played a good team and lost.
What poor personnel are you talking about? Maybe you get more Greene
but maybe he was effective because of his use. He and LT were in there
at the same time on many plays.
We entered the season thin at DL and that has gotten thinner.
> h
Grinch
wrote:
> "buRford" <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3gkfh61vqq9edc3vd...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sun, 26 Dec 2010 13:57:00 -0800 (PST), Glenn Greenstein
Right. The defense has to hold the other team to less than 38 to win.
Any defense does. You give up 38, you lose. No O game plan can be
expected to save that,
But especially the defense of a team specifically built to win with
"the best defense in the league" and a ground and pound control
offense.
This was yet another game where the D gave up just a 50% completion
rate to the opposing QB, which on its face is very good -- except the
completions are *huge*. The opposing OCs clearly have figured out how
to get big gains against Rex's schemes.
> with NO pass rush and being out schemed by Martz Rex did
> the only thing left...let the O score, and Sanchez played better than he has
> maybe all season...
Agreed, over the last two weeks he's played his best ever, like a real
QB for the first time.
It looks like he's finally grapsed the idea of throwing passes he can
complete. And maybe they're giving him more of those.
> the O scheme was a Hell of a lot better, it had some
> purpose to it. I would still criticize them for looking to get something
> out of LT, who looks old and definitely a step slower than even a month ago,
> and a couple bad probably Rex decisions. I even think they ran the wildcat
> much better....Smith didn't screw up on that pass...receivers need to
> complete the play...a lot of them don't, they seem to slow down prematurely
> if it doesn't develop as fast as they think...at any rate, letting him throw
> at that point was a good decision, but I'd have done it from the basic
> wildcat setup, him in shotgun....
The only big problem I had was the 4th down pass at the start of the
second half (and it should have worked, Smith dropped it).
If from the film they thought that play might work, good, they should
have been ready to use it. But not *there*. It's inherently a high
risk-reward play. Use it up 8 on the other team's 35 and the payoff
is big -- at best you can put the game away right there, at worst you
should win anyhow. Use it as they did on your own 35 with the other
team within one score and then at best you get not much, at worst you
hand control of the game over to the other team. Which is what they
did. Really bad call, IMHO.
> the D was totally confused and lost...they
> have no scheme to make up for no pass rusher, and offenses have figured them
> out...
Yup.
> they took Revis and Cromartie out of the game. With a good rusher,
> someone good on the inside and a really good coverage LB like Urlacher and
> they have something going again. Leonhard not being there hurts too I
> think, he may have been soft at times, but when he hit a guy they knew they
> were hit. OMHO. Papa Carl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
All agreed.
But this was a close, tough game between two good playoff-quality
teams on the other team's field that could have gone either way. A
credible performance, not a dog one like a couple of the worst losses
(or worst victories). Nothing to be ashamed of here.
And they made the playoffs with a week to spare.
So overall, in spite of the ups and downs and all the imperfections,
not a bad year!
Harlan Lachman
<b820c9b4-4325-4a59...@z19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
John C TX <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Besides which, we have some major personnel weaknesses before the Jets
> > can be taken seriously.
> We played a good team and lost.
>
> What poor personnel are you talking about? Maybe you get more Greene
> but maybe he was effective because of his use. He and LT were in there
> at the same time on many plays.
>
> We entered the season thin at DL and that has gotten thinner.
John, the personnel weaknesses I am talking about are a DL that has no
penetrator except for an older NT who has missed most of two seasons and
two OLB who generate little or no pass rush. And, the fact that Eric
Smith got any PT at safety, tells me we have a major problem there too.
One could blame TE also. But I blame the use of Mulligan and Hartsock,
especially as eligible receivers on whichever idiot is really
responsible for the offense. There is no excuse for their being on
passing plays with all the talented receivers on this team.
h
Tutor
>
> - Show quoted text -
10 men on the field for the Hester TD. That's bad coaching. period.
Martz completely outwitted Rex on their respective sides of the ball
yesterday. Defend Rex all you want, but you are deluding yourself
that he's doing a great job with this defense.
Harlan Lachman
<b04f3ecd-ca44-4a7d...@32g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
John C TX <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> >
> > > > Besides which, we have some major personnel weaknesses before the Jets
> > > > can be taken seriously.
> > > We played a good team and lost.
> >
> > > What poor personnel are you talking about? Maybe you get more Greene
> > > but maybe he was effective because of his use. He and LT were in there
> > > at the same time on many plays.
> >
> > > We entered the season thin at DL and that has gotten thinner.
> >
> > John, the personnel weaknesses I am talking about are a DL that has no
> > penetrator except for an older NT who has missed most of two seasons and
> > two OLB who generate little or no pass rush. And, the fact that Eric
> > Smith got any PT at safety, tells me we have a major problem there too.
>
> I agree. We entered thin at DL and it got thinner. Remember we lost
> that big Islander at the end of pre-season. I think most teams have
> to roll the dice at some positions and hope for no or few injuries.
> Smith has bugged me since day one but I woudl like him back right now
> as he at least knows to get on the field.
> >
> > One could blame TE also. But I blame the use of Mulligan and Hartsock,
> > especially as eligible receivers on whichever idiot is really
> > responsible for the offense. There is no excuse for their being on
> > passing plays with all the talented receivers on this team.
>
> H, rehashing the offense & who has their fingerprints on what portion
> is waste of our time. Someone thinks we are more effective running
> with those sets. Simms thought passing out of those sets was smart. As
> the Pats have found out this year having TE's that can catch is a good
> thing. We could use a big Pole like the Pats have to go with Keller.
>
> Having 4-5 TE's seems to be spreading around the league it used to be
> a BB phenomenon but Houston has 5.
Perhaps, but Mulligan and Hartsock ain't him.
h
RickyBobby
"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:5fd7f557-46f2-418e...@29g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
Yup.
All agreed.
How so, last season our defense looked like the second coming of the 2000
ravens, now at this point they look like the second coming of the 2000 Lions
RickyBobby
news:53f77b42-9750-495a...@v17g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
He's not bad at all just needs a little more experience.
RickyBobby
news:1f217fa2-90f2-4cf3...@i18g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
you sound like two girls having a pillow fight. poopy or get off the potty
JetsLife
> The SOJ lives.
> An undermanned D, with Rex' scheme figured out by OCs.
> Poor ST play.
> And an O game plan devised in some other universe.
>
> I realize the usual suspects will say the O wasn't a problem, but a smart game plan
> would've taken advantage of Shonn Greene, slowed the game down & kept Cutler off the
> field. Too much passing & too much LT, played into the Bears' hands.
> And that last play to Holmes... I knew it was coming, since we've done it all year. So, I
> suspect the Bears did. It was a great pass by MS, but the Bears were ready for it.
> They had the lead, & the ball entering the 2nd half. LT was in for no reason, and the O
> did nothing. Then, of course, Rex stepped in with the fake point.
> But, if they actually moved the ball to start the 2nd half, it might've been different.
> Just too much passing, & LT... dumb.
>
> Oh well... hopefully, there'll be some pass rushers in the draft.
> And we'll have a new OC.
> As for the playoffs, at this point I could care less.
> This was the game to win, they didn't.
Do you agree an offense's prime responsibility - way more any other -
is scoring points? Or maybe you think offense is about style - that is
*how* the Jets offense plays is more important than actually scoring
points.
Count me among the usual suspects since I believe scoring points is an
offense's prime task. Followed by not turning the ball over.
27 points scored (31 if Keller holds on in the EZ) on the road v. a
good defense indicate the offense mostly fulfilled job No. 1. Not to
mention outgaining and outpossessing Chicago. The *major* glaring
blemish were the 3 turnovers (fake punt being a turnover on downs). 1
turnover is one too many, anything more is disastrous.
The SOJ lives for you and others because you guys *can't let it go.*
If you want to say the Jets aren't good enough, fine. But that has
absolutely zilcho to do with SOJ, just like any "Same Old (fill in tbe
blank)" mythical long-term curse or trend. All such BS means is the
given 'Same Old' unsuccessful team wasn't good enough during a given
season, game, or moment. And that can/does happen year after year
until an organization gets the proper talent and leadership in place.
Of course it's much easier to chalk up consistent mediocrity to curses
and the like. Much easier to fall back on labels, and engage in lazy,
flawed analysis.
Do the SOJ go on the road a week earlier and win for the first time
ever in Pittsburgh/PA. in general? Do SOJ put themselves in position
to claim 12 wins 2 weeks before the end of the regular season? And on
and on and on.
Does you're last paragraph mean you're throwing in the towel on the
season? If so, no problem here and for the rest of us still on the
bandwagon. More legroom and shorter lines at concessions.