Re: What does this stat mean to you?
MuahMan
> "The Jets' running game was brutal. On first down, they ran 18 times for only 48 yards."
>
> To me, I'd think, maybe after 17 runs on 1st down... "Hmmm, we're not having too much
> success running on 1st down. Maybe we should change it up a bit?"
> Play-action, anyone?
I'm sure the Dolphins would have loved some more interceptions on 1st
down.
Harlan Lachman
<5129a382-ca68-4e05...@c39g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
MuahMan <mua...@gmail.com> wrote:
FWIW, I think MM has just implied a key flaw with our offense. The Jet
offense is more about not making mistakes than trying to beat the other
team into submission. The emphasis is on trickeration as opposed to
beating other teams. The tip off their opponent to their plays with
repetition and personnel who give away the plays.
It is painful to have a troll identify our problems succinctly if not
clearly.
Harlan
Glenn Greenstein
> In article
> <5129a382-ca68-4e05-8fd1-d8fa51234...@c39g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
The Jets threw the ball 44 times and our QB had a 45 passer rating but
we should have thrown the ball more.
Brian is correct, had Sanchez thrown more on first down using play
action which wouldn't have worked since the running game was the last
thing the Fins were concerened with, it would have probably resulted
in more picks.
Grinch
> In article
> <5129a382-ca68-4e05-8fd1-d8fa51234...@c39g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > On Dec 13, 12:41 am, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> > > "The Jets' running game was brutal. On first down, they ran 18 times for
> > > only 48 yards."
>
> > > To me, I'd think, maybe after 17 runs on 1st down... "Hmmm, we're not
> > > having too much
> > > success running on 1st down. Maybe we should change it up a bit?"
> > > Play-action, anyone?
>
> > I'm sure the Dolphins would have loved some more interceptions on 1st
> > down.
>
> FWIW, I think MM has just implied a key flaw with our offense. The Jet
> offense is more about not making mistakes than trying to beat the other
> team into submission.
Is the reason for this perhaps that it has the most innaccurate,
mistake-prone QB in the league -- league bottom 53% completion rate,
12 picks in the last 7 games (a rate of 27 in 16)?
How do you beat someone into submission with a broken toothpick?
Just imagine how many mistakes this kid would be making if they
weren't cutting out the risk of his making mistakes!
Grinch
> On Dec 13, 8:58 am, Harlan Lachman <har...@eeivt.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <5129a382-ca68-4e05-8fd1-d8fa51234...@c39g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > MuahMan <muah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 13, 12:41 am, buRford <buRf...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> > > > "The Jets' running game was brutal. On first down, they ran 18 times for
> > > > only 48 yards."
>
> > > > To me, I'd think, maybe after 17 runs on 1st down... "Hmmm, we're not
> > > > having too much
> > > > success running on 1st down. Maybe we should change it up a bit?"
> > > > Play-action, anyone?
>
> > > I'm sure the Dolphins would have loved some more interceptions on 1st
> > > down.
>
> > FWIW, I think MM has just implied a key flaw with our offense. The Jet
> > offense is more about not making mistakes than trying to beat the other
> > team into submission. The emphasis is on trickeration as opposed to
> > beating other teams. The tip off their opponent to their plays with
> > repetition and personnel who give away the plays.
>
> > It is painful to have a troll identify our problems succinctly if not
> > clearly.
>
> > Harlan
>
> The Jets threw the ball 44 times and our QB had a 45 passer rating but
> we should have thrown the ball more.
Touché
> Brian is correct, had Sanchez thrown more on first down using play
> action which wouldn't have worked since the running game was the last
> thing the Fins were concerened with, it would have probably resulted
> in more picks.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Glenn Greenstein
> If a D knows you're gonna run on 1st down, they'll tend to stuff it.
> So, the object is to surprise them, and not show them what you're doing.
> And actually, if you watched the game, the run was the first thing the Fins were concerned
> with. They wanted to take away the run.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Play action only works when you can run the ball.
papa.carl44
"Glenn Greenstein" <lex...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:81cb38db-af18-453f...@q18g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
You are 100% correct, but when the O is so predictable it is very hard to
run block, when the D is expecting a given attack.
Harlan Lachman
buRford <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 06:27:17 -0800 (PST), Glenn Greenstein
> Again, Glenn... it's not about passing more. It's about when to pass... the
> situation.
> If a D knows you're gonna run on 1st down, they'll tend to stuff it.
> So, the object is to surprise them, and not show them what you're doing.
> And actually, if you watched the game, the run was the first thing the Fins
> were concerned
> with. They wanted to take away the run.
Burf, I think you are missing a bigger point.
It is not about down. If we put in Hartsock and take out Holmes and have
T-Rich in, how often (and how effectively) do we pass. The reason teams
know what we are doing is that Shott is convinced he needs to have
specific personnel in for specific plays.
I think if we always lined up with Braylon, Cotch and Holmes and Dustin
as the TE, both our running game and passing games would be more
effective.
And if we ditched the tricky movement crap, we might even get plays off.
harlan
Harlan Lachman
<a1e9388f-26fc-409f...@y23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
John C TX <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have to ask. What is plan C when your QB can't make the throw and
> when he is forcing the ball many times when he does?
John, while right now it looks like they should take Sanchez out and
shoot him to put him out of his misery, at times this season, he has
looked pretty effective.
I have to believe if the play design, use of personnel and play calling
were more effective on both sides of the ball, Sanchez would be more
confident and less ineffective.
h
Grinch
> If a D knows you're gonna run on 1st down, they'll tend to stuff it.
When your QB is compiling a 45 passing rating, and 65 over the last 8
games, the opposition of course knows you are going to run -- and
you'd better!
> So, the object is to surprise them, and not show them what you're doing.
The #1 object is to pay franchise QB money to a QB who can complete
passes at a higher percentage than Clemens, who took a pay cut down
towards minimum to keep his spot on the roster.
Ooops.
> And actually, if you watched the game, the run was the first thing the Fins were concerned
> with. They wanted to take away the run.
Well yes, if instead Sanchez had come out throwing all over the place
the Fins *would* have been surprised.
Overjoyed, but surprised.
Grinch
> John C TX <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have to ask. What is plan C when your QB can't make the throw and
> > when he is forcing the ball many times when he does?
>
> John, while right now it looks like they should take Sanchez out and
> shoot him to put him out of his misery, at times this season, he has
> looked pretty effective.
>
> I have to believe if the play design, use of personnel and play calling
> were more effective on both sides of the ball, Sanchez would be more
> confident and less ineffective.
Why do you have to believe that?
In three years Chad and Favre hit 66% of their passes with Schott
calling their Os.
Last year Sanchez hit 53.8% and so far this year he's dropped to 53.3%
And Sanchez has been on teams far better on both sides of the ball
than Chad/Favre -- the 2007 team was 4-12 dreadful on both sides of
the ball and Chad hit 68.8%.
Maybe it's time to stop having to believe that the problem with
Sanchez is everybody but Sanchez, and start asking the obvious
question about whether it is just Sanchez.
> h
Copp
Harlan Lachman <har...@eeivt.com> wrote:
> John, while right now it looks like they should take Sanchez out and
> shoot him to put him out of his misery, at times this season, he has
> looked pretty effective.
>
> I have to believe if the play design, use of personnel and play calling
> were more effective on both sides of the ball, Sanchez would be more
> confident and less ineffective.
Did you go through the tape of the game and count all the dropped passes?
How much more "effective" could Schott's play calling be if the
play-calling is constantly getting players wide-open and they drop
the ball?
On the interception to Spikes in the Pats game, the play-calling
drove the team right down the field, only to have Sanchez throw
the ball into coverage instead of to the wide-open guy on the left.
You've got a QB who isn't that good (yet, maybe never) and some
"athletic" but stone-handed receivers (remember Bethel Johnson?)
who aren't as good as you think they are. But I suppose wishing
it was the OC rather than the players makes it easier to take,
you can pretend in your own mind "All they gotta do is fire the OC
and they'll be great!"