I think a large part of that is playcalling. Yes we won, but again Bates didn't do any favors to darnold. It wasn't until late in the second half he finally stopped calling those empty backfields on 3rd down. Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
While I agree with you regarding the play calling, the bottom line is the buck stops at Bowles. Ultimately, he is responsible. If he doesn't like Bates' playcalling, it's his right and job to say something about it and order Bates to change.
I know you're being sarcastic, but there are stats to argue doing exactly that. I'm not saying that would be the right call, but in another situation it might be.,,not that Bowles would ever do it.
The entire NFL is too conservative according to analytics. In reality Bowles is a middle of the road to slightly conservative NFL head coach which makes him painfully so to us as fans.
Unless the HC calls in plays, HC rarely over rule OC during in-plays or before plays. During TO yes HC will make final call. Bates is still learning and am happy with his play calling for most part. He can and will get better once he works and learns with Darnold. Leave the coaching staff alone for few more weeks
I watch a lot of NFL games and a lot of sports. What's almost universally true in the NFL is when teams get leads the other team goes into hurry up mode and scores points. Most NFL games are decided by a field goal. The Jets scored 42 points yesterday. 23 in the first half, 19 in the second half. They did nothing dumb or stupid to give the game away. They executed and kept their lead. Sports, all of them have ebb and flow. This game, while not a laugher was a solid, easy NFL win. Typical of most games teams with big leads give them up. Andrew Luck happens to be a veteran QB and prior to getting hurt was in the argument for top 3. He's still a beast and dangerous. Frank Reich was the OC of the Eagles the last two years. He's a very solid Offensive coach. The Colts may not be very good but they have a team filled with elite NFL athletes who are all competitive as hell. They would try and beat you in tiddlywinks. They aren't laying down and dying if they have any professional pride. It takes balls to be a fan. Games are generally close. They ebb and flow. If the Jets every become really good and get to multiple playoff games you're going to need balls to watch those games. There will be times when we get leads and lose them, times we squeak by and win. The NFL is designed to have close competitive games through a system that rewards bad teams with high draft choices and forces them off the team if they draft well. They restrict practice and it's loaded with guys who haven't played together for a very long time. Lots of moving parts. Buckle up and toughen up. You're not entitled to blow outs and even when the Jets become really good there will be very few of them and they will be very far apart.
Quick question was Andy Reid moronically aggressive when he dialed up a long TD pass with over 3 minutes left in the game against the Pats? My first reaction was Andy Reid is a dope. How can you give Tom Brady that much time to beat you? Clearly you dial it back and score the game winning TD with under 20 seconds on the clock after the other team has used all of their time outs.
Maybe it's a matter of bias - towards offense or defense - and maybe Reid made the wrong decision, but I agree with scoring when you can score, and then counting on your defense to hold them. Or you could follow the Bowles Approach: play conservative, assume your offense can't get the job done and your defense will. I'll go with Reid's plan. As to your previous post, I agree that the NFL is set up - in fact, ensures it - to make games competitive. I have no proof, other than game scores, but I believe the NFL instructs officials to "manage the game" with penalties or lack thereof to make sure games are close, and even to let certain revenue enhancing teams win whenever possible. I would submit the Patriot-Falcons SB as Exhibit A in this argument. But "it takes balls to be an NFL fan"? Really? All those who become fans do so because they love the excitement, even when their team loses. Sure, they may bitch and moan about the loss - or that their team didn't win as easily as they wanted them to - but the adrenaline rush that comes with the excitement transcends any "rational judgement" they make about winning or losing. And in the case of Jets fans, if we we must have the biggest balls of any fan base given how often we've suffered the "agony of defeat" after the "ebb an flow" left us high and dry. Anyone who can't handle the ups and downs of their team isn't going to remain a fan for long. There's a word for that type of fan "Front runner". The majority of Jets fans are NOT front runners almost by definition. I know you've been a Jet fan for decades, and I respect your opinions, but in this case I disagree. Seven FGs is a statement about how this team was managed during the game, especially in the RZ. A HC that had any feel for offense would've given his team a chance to convert some of those FGs into TDs. Most of those FGs were not chip shots and so coaching with a mindset of "Well, if we don't get any closer we can take the FG" isn't smart football either. Especially in light of what you yourself said: The NFL is set up to make sure games remain competitive. Banking on FGs winning the game, especially when playing against a QB like Luck, is definitely not smart either. Again, the NFL wants scoring, and by that they prefer TDs because that ignites fan interest, so they're going to reward teams that go for it, rather than play it safe. Bowles is from another era, and isn't likely to change his ways. He should've tried to score on that last drive instead of playing for the FG.
They didn't take the lead they tied the game on the road against Tom Brady and left him over 3 minutes to get in field goal range. 43 game winning drives by Tom Brady says hi.
We killed them. We kicked 7 field goals because we had a big lead and their was absolutely no reason to risk that lead to get a bigger lead. The game wasn't close. It wasn't conservative to jeopardize that game at any point to score more points. We scored 42 points. We led from wire to wire. We had a 2 TD lead deep into the 4th quarter. My point about the balls is if it makes you nervous because the other team needs to excuse a perfect onside kick score a td and execute a 2 point conversion with no timeouts to beat you than you better prepare yourself. That was an easy win and we won easily. If that game was blown because of a turnover this team is dead in the water today. I agree it's not a gime to kick 7 field goals. Nice job special teams. Great execution. Clean off the sword and lets figure out a way to beat MN.
Did you just say they kicked 7 field goals because they wanted to? That's asinine. they kicked 7 field goals because they couldn't score touchdowns
I didn't say that and since you quoted me you know that thank you for being 50 percent honest. Your point is however a good one. The reason we kicked 7 field goals is we didn't score TD's and chose to put the points on the board even though we couldn't score TD's. We did however score 42 points. Lets continue the honesty. We may not have scored any TD's if we were more aggressive in our play calling. We may have gotten sacked out of field goal range or turned the ball over. We may have scored more TD's and less points. We may have scored 7 more TD's and put up 60? There are a lot of possibilities. The real point is you think Bates was conservative in the play calling and wanted the Head Coach to tell him to be more aggressive in a game we were in complete control of. It's a reasonable position. Based on the results it's a total second guess bitch fest and in your words asinine.
Colorado-You and I go way back. I'm always good with you. Speaking of 7 FG's didn't we draft Nuge in the 2nd round because we were a field goal away from the AFC Finals in Pittsburgh. The kid was a great college kicker and couldn't hit the side of the barn with us his rookie year. He went on to have a 16 year NFL career only 4 with us. Take the positive this team isn't a field goal kicker away from getting to the SB.
Well I always admire your optimism - no wonder you don't live in NY, the town of the "Glass Half Empty". Maybe I didn't move soon enough! In any case, we're going to "agree to disagree" on this one. I know of no coach who would "choose" to pass up a TD for a FG, unless of course he believes he cant score the TD. This is where the conservative thinking undermines the Jets offense. Henry Ford once said: "Whether you think you can, or you think you can't...you're right". Bowles doesn't believe in his offense, and over-estimates his defense. You can see this in the decisions he makes during games. We've both seen enough games where the Jets "Snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory" over the years to know that almost no lead is safe with them. Maybe I'm just permanently scarred from the Heidi Bowl to ever feel safe until the final whistle. In any case, when Bowles chose to play it safe on that last drive, running Powell instead of trying a play action and going for the kill, that was a missed opportunity IMO. They had a decent cushion at that point, and unless Darnold threw an interception - possible but he had been playing smart up until then - they could always kick the FG on 4th down. Going for it would've shown confidence in Sam and the offense, and given Sam experience in closing games. Did you bet the Colts with the points?
People bickering over ONE game and Bowles with the poor play calling..lmao Go look at two seasons of 5-11 and 3 years of his BS coaching for a more reliable sample If you are a Bowles homer the evidence makes NO difference..you are backing this guy for life..
I still believe that we are mixing aggressive play calling with when to kick or not kick a field goal. Fact remains that the primary reason for the decision was solely driven by lack of execution in the red zone. Given that, and given the fact we had a nice lead, IMO adding points via field goals was proper. You force them into a two score situation and a totally different set of urgency. Had the score been closer or we were slightly behind, the play calling would have adjusted towards going on 4th down. Just my two cents. I do believe though that we need to adjust our offensive play calling to take more time off the clock when we are comfortably ahead. These games give me a heart attack.
Yup. Expected wins would show a subtle but clear increase for teams that went on fourth down more and went for two points more. But sometimes those risks would backfire, and the fear of failure (and fan/media reaction to failure) is very powerful.
