Ok, great. Now let's have another look... Holmes and Hill out wide... Keller tight on the line on Hill's side... Conner and Greene in the off I towards Keller's side... possible run heavy away from Holmes giving Holmes room to operate... defense sets... play action... Holmes breaks a slant but in this instance is covered well (Note, I think he would be open most of the time in this situation for 5 yards) - read 1... Hill streaks on a go but has over the top safety help, but effectively clears out the safety, while the other safety is biting in on Holmes slant - read 2... Keller chips and breaks into the flat as a lead blocker for Greene who takes the read 3 dump off while Conner takes on the block given up by Keller. Here Sanchez has three defined reads... a quick slant to Holmes, a go route to Hill and if both routes are covered, he has a play set up really well to Greene with a lead blocker in Keller and both safeties occupied. They still also have someone to pick up the rush or blitz in Conner. Even if all is broken, Holmes still has a chance for the double move and can still get open as a fourth read as Sanchez breaks into the flat with Keller and Greene. The point is, there is nothing "simple" about this. Everything is defined. There isn't a ton of possibilities out of the play, maybe 4, but that's quite enough. You don't need 25 options.
I don't think there is any doubt Sanchez' play should improve under Sparano. Tony won't put him in a position to fail and will play the very safe and conservative game. He did it with Henne and there is no reason to think he won't be any different with Sanchez. Sparano's issues are not with over complicating his system for his guys or being an ineffective communicator and nearly all his players loved playing for him. The Dolphins offense was very disciplined and I expect to see the same from the Jets. His issues are that he is very anal, stubborn, lacks creativity and has trouble with adjusting and decision making. It's not fair to say he will be a failure as an OC nor is it realistic to think that he will be a better OC then Schotty. His sytem will be much easier for the Jets to execute but easier for opponents to defend as well.
Bah..... As confusing as the Schitty offense is to player responsibilities, we all sat back and knew what that MF was going to do... He outsmarted himself most of the time while setting the team back due to penalties and players not on the same page.
How could it possibly be easier to defend? Schitty's complex offense fooled no one, it just made the offense spin it's wheels in place and go no where... Being simple doesn't make it easier to defend at all if you call the right plays - Schitty never knew the right time to take a shot down field - I can recall a few times the Dolphins made downfield plays on the Jets alone...
I think you are a bit harsch on Schotty's offense. In times when it clicked, there were drives where you had the defence guessing. I just don't think it was good for a QB that needed confidence. Mind you, i don't think Sanchez will perform materially different under Sparano, but god i hope i am wrong.
Last year is last year. I'm concerned with this year. Would it be OK to be predictable this year because we were last year? It doesn't matter.
What the hell. Is this for real? Assume that Offense A proved to be (whether this is true or not, just assume) relatively easy to defend. Then assume Offense B is different from Offense A. This means that Offense B will (somehow, automatically?) be difficult to defend??? Of course not. As for the right play calling, oh yeah, that's another thing that will happen automatically. Got it. How come everybody swallowed it all and left no Kool Aide for me?
I don't have any great feelings about Sparano as our OC but I don't think that's necessarily true. If the Jets offense was in fact confusing to the players executing it to the point where they weren't on the same page it was self defeating, it wouldn't take a great defensive effort to stifle. We did in fact see signs of a self defeating offense at times with so many foolish penalties alone. Let's look at it another way. Say you have a rock band and Jimmy Hendricks comes along and is all like budabumpdumpdadittydidily doo and then Ray Lewis smashes him in the head with his own guitar. What then?
I think the metafor would work better if ray lewis just smashes his guitar to pieces while henrix is watching (and therefore sanchez spent the entire season in the fetus position).
i don't know what you intended, but i liked the idea of schotty thinking of himself as the henrix of all OCs, making up plays as he goes, sometimes with the playcard behind his back
I'm sure its much simpler - I mean how many variations of field goals and punts can one offense come up with? - The Jets won't need much more than that with Sparano, the field goal kicking GOD. Also anyone else find it funny that McKnight of all people enjoys the offense being simple? Now maybe he'll know the plays!
There is nothing complicated about that play where it makes sense, and it often doesn't. First off: play action and a slant? Such a thing is almost never run, and when it is it's a predetermined read and throw. The way pro style offenses work is that routes and protection schemes are built into the depth of the quarterback's drop. Slants are one of the routes timed out with three step drops, and because of where the pass is thrown the offensive tackles will usually cut block, to drop the hands of the defensive linemen. Running play action with the offensive linemen cut blocking would be, obviously, both strange and unwise. The extra time it takes to run play action means it is almost always run out of some kind of max protection look, with fewer people in the route and running deeper patterns to time out with the deeper drop. The extra time it takes to run play action dictates all of this. Timing dictates everything in a pro style offense. I won't comment on the rest of the play except to say that it sounds like both cover 3 and cover 4 would smother it pretty easily. In both Hill is taken care of by a single bailing corner. If he doesn't read the bail and run a comeback (the depth of which, again, would be tied into the quarterback's drop), then he's totally out of the play. A safety (cover 3) or two safeties (cover 4) would be reading run first and would be in perfect position to cover Keller and the backs with ease. So yeah, stop inventing plays. You are pretty clearly underestimating the complexity of even simple offenses.
Heh. Putting McKnight aside, I can imagine players on offense would prefer that the plays be simple. Less work for them. Less thought required. Less time spent learning the playbook. Unfortunately also less difficulty for opposing DC's to figure out what the Jets are doing and how to stop it.
are you fucking mental? we had the most predictable offense of all time under schotty. little children were onto him!! we are talking about going away from an offense that was so complicated it literally frustrated the players. what is smart about that? absolutely nothing. in fact, it screams of some of the problems we have in todays society. everything gets overly convoluted and takes so many twists and turns that the meat of it gets overlooked. an efficient machine is not one that is constantly shifting and changing based on myriad factors, it runs the same way every time with similar results. one of the most genius equations ever created? 3 fucking variables. get with the net. just cause its complex doesnt make it smart.
It seems the debate here is mainly between execution versus surprise. If execution isn't working, then surprise is rendered meaningless. Thus, execution is the first priority and if they focus on that, then the offense will be effective when they surprise and when they don't surprise the defense.
