I'm blaming Rex because his last 2 seasons were 8-8 and 6-10. Kind of thought that was readily apparent.
Nope, I take context into account as that is where you can usually find answers. Context, Rex self admittedly "lost the pulse of the locker room" in 2010, and was partly to blame both for some of his actions and his inactions. Yes, there were injuries this year and terrible QB play, but I don't think that explains why the team performed so poorly. The Oline sucked for at least half the year, even after we got rid of Wayne Hunter. Given that we have a couple of ProBowlers on the line, that speaks to bad coaching. I definitely blame Degugliamo for that, and also Sparano, and lastly Rex. He should have seen to it that the problems were fixed. As to QB play, you keep on insisting that Sanchez was the best QB on the roster. For starters, I'm not convinced of that and the stats back me up. You want to argue ? Go talk with the guys at ColdHardFootballFacts as they certainly disagree. Secondly, even if Sanchez looked better in practice than Tebow or McElroy, Rex STILL SHOULD HAVE BENCHED HIS ASS much earlier in the season. Doesn't matter which QB replaced him. That's what real coaches do when their starter sucks game after game after game. Would have been different if Mark had been out there playing well and the rest of the team was letting him down, but that wasn't the case. HE was a large part of the problem. Bench his ass and let him think about it. See what the other QBs could do in actual game situations. I said at the time, put Tebow in and see what he could do, as he was the #2. If he farked it up, then yank him and put in McElroy. But no, Rex was the brilliant coach who kept sending Mark freaking Sanchez out there to fark up and lose games. Next, we get to Sparano. Seems that Rex was at least involved in his selection and hiring. Rex, being the HC, should have overseen Sparano. IF he wasn't cutting it, Rex should have removed him from the playcalling and had someone else do it. He wouldn't even have to announce it, just do it in house. Or, god forbid, do like the SB champ Ravens and fire the OC in midseason and replace him with someone else. Sure, now and then Sparano called some good plays and the offense sucked because Mark or someone else didn't execute, but a lot of the problems on offense were the direct result of the fact that Sparano sucked ass as well. Lastly, just look at what Rex has done since the season finished. It seems that even though he spent 4 years talking about how he really believed in a "Ground and Pound" philosophy, NOW he wants the offense to be more high powered, and supposedly he wanted this all along.
I guess that's the best that you can come up with, given that you can't refute the points that were made.
For the Offense that they built last season, Sanchez was the best fit. It relied on a QB able to stand in the pocket and throw. It was NOT the run-option that Denver slapped together for Tebow last season. Sanchez was certainly up and down thru the season. But some coaches believe in their guy and believe in letting the QB play thru bad streaks. It didn't work out this time, but no single approach always works. Playcalling is to an extent, taking chances. Sparano didn't do well this season. But was there anyone else on the staff more qualified to take over? And if Sparano sucked ass with Sanchez - they type of QB he's used to coaching - why would he have been any better with Tebow - a very different type of QB? I haven't read any of what Rex has said about that. Could you post some links?
Actually, the type of offense we ran last year was right up Tebow's alley. Ball control with the running game while taking shots over the top. If you wanted to take advantage of Tebow's running abilities, then they could have added in read/option as well. Play through bad streaks is what you do with established QBs, and even then, once it gets to 4 or 5 bad games, you bench their ass. What does it matter really ? The play calling we had sucked and led to losses. Just as with the QB position, if what you are trying doesn't work, then CHANGE to something else. At worst, it won't work either, but it's not like you are worse off. Because it was actually a combination of the two. Sparano's terrible play calling coupled with Sanchez's boneheaded mistakes. Terrible play calling didn't lead to the turnovers in most cases. Those were on Sanchez. I'm not saying that we would have been a 14-2 team, but we would have finished much better than 6-10. Additionally, if receivers were open on a called pass play, perhaps with poor route design, Tebow would have run the ball instead which results in positive yardage. What ? Rex talking ground and pound ? Or wanting a more high powered offense ?
Tebow wasn't running a "read-option" in Denver. Because he can't read NFL Defenses. It was a "run-option." Which in Tebow's case meant that if his primary reciever wasn't WIDE OPEN then he pulled down the ball and ran with it... Sanchez isn't an "established QB?" He came into the season having started the 3 previous years, reaching the AFCCG in 2 of them. He had a 27-20 (.574) record thru those 3 seasons. Just what does it take in your mind to be an "established" QB? And if you look at his 2012 game log, Sanchez would have 1-2 bad games, and then he'd turn in a good performance. So it wasn't really 4-5 game skids. A bit harder to justify benching in those circumstances. So if things aren't working change things indiscriminately just for the sake of changing and blindly hoping somehow it works? What if what you're already doing is the best option and it's not working? Does it make sense to change to something that is LESS workable? So you have access to gamefilm? And the playbook to know what was supposed to happen on a given play? Because the TV does not always show what was actually going on. You can't always see what the passing lanes were, if recievers ran the wrong route, miscommunication, if a defender was ready to jump a pass lane, etc. And I seem to remember seeing Tebow trying to run on some plays, getting boxed in and backing up and up and up until he was finally sacked for a HUGE loss. Both actually. I'm not trying to be an a-hole here. I just don't want to comment on something I'm unaware of.
Kinda does take away from your point though being as though your entire existence on this forum is due to one guy so you are inclined to minimize his faults whereas somebody who is a fan of the team is going to call it like they see it as they have no attachment to one particular individual.
Dude, you don't know wtf you are talking about. Tebow ran the Read/Option quite a bit in Denver. Coming off the poor games he had in 2011, no, I wouldn't say that he was "established". An "established QB" is one who has shown good play CONSISTENTLY over time. That definitely doesn't describe Mark Sanchez. Pitt, Miami, SF and Houston. Those were all bad games for Sanchez. Pulling a QB serves multiple purposes. #1 of course is that it puts someone else in the game in the hopes that they do well. Another thing is does is that it sends a message to your starter saying "Dude, you're farking up, fix this shit". #3, it sends a message to the other players on the team saying that no one is protected or is guaranteed a starting position. Who knows, it's possible that if Rex had benched Mark earlier in the season, he might have responded differently. Perhaps a midseason benching would have had a different effect than an end of season benching. Actually, I do have the All 22 game film. Wrong routes etc don't matter on short "sight throws". Take the Int at the goal line against Seattle. Keller wide open out in the flat and Hill coming across the back of the end zone. Mark looks right at Hill, hesitates, looks at Keller, pumps a couple of times and then finally throws the ball late and it gets intercepted. Who are you going to blame for that one ? Yes, they tried to run Tebow on some plays and he got stuffed now and then. This happens when you do a direct snap to a RB and have him try to run right up the middle, which is what Sparano did. IF you look around these forums, you'll find instances where others said that Tebow should be used as a RB and I disagreed. I pointed out that much of Tebow's yardage is due to running the Option along with his size/speed. In short, there's a big difference between running from the QB position in the option and a normal RB position. Couple this with there being little to no threat of a pass due to Sparano's play calling. Laron Landry summed it up nicely when he said that when Tebow was in, you knew it was a Power run up the middle. He was actually wrong technically as a "Power" run denotes a "Power" blocking scheme, which is something Sparano didn't utilize either. Really ? You aren't familiar with Rex and the Jets being all about the "Ground and Pound" in 2009 and 2010, and Rex wanting to go back to it midway through 2011 and then into 2012 ? And you missed the talk about him wanting to go to a more explosive offense this year ?
Tebow is the reason that I came to a Jets forum, but if you checked, I've been pretty active over on the other side as well discussing all aspects of the team. I don't try to minimize Tebow's faults. Rather, I try to put things in perspective and correct things that are just flat out wrong. For example, some say that in 2011, all those passes by Tebow that were in the dirt were throwaway attempts. Nope, those were just some farked up bad passes that were way off target. Where you and I might differ is in discussing the cause of the problem and how big that problem might be. I say that the dirt missles, as some here like to call them, were the result of inconsistent mechanics due to the attempts to change his throwing motion. That once he gets many thousands of reps under his belt with the new mechanics, the problem won't exist any longer. In the short term, sure, it's a problem as it stalls drives and whatnot. Long term though ? It's fixable.
anyone else counting the days till this tebow attention whore is off the roster? ohh look at me im all jesusy woohoo we get it buddy, now stop preaching and work on your mechanics if you want to have a job next season, cause guess what, IF god does exist, you can be damn sure he dont give one shit about tebow or any one elses for that matter football careers.
Tebow ran an option scheme. That doesn't mean it was a "read-option." It was specifically referred to as a "run-option" because that's what it was. It was far different than the "read-option" that RGIII, etc ran last season. CBS Sports - Tracking Tebow, Week 9: The RUN-OPTION Lives! So when you say "established QB," you really mean a "superior QB," not the established starter for the team? I know this is playing with sematics, but if we don't know what each other means, there can't be a useful conversation. That's one approach. But apparently it wasn't Rex's. He opted to support his starter unwaiveringly - another approach. Pundits of that method feels it boosts the QB's confidence knowing he has the backing of the coaching staff and so he won't be playing from a position of fear that he'll be benched the next time he "farks" it up - he ends up playing it safe instead of playing to win. It also sends a message to the rest of the team that the current starter is "the guy" that they should be supporting, don't abandon him and look further down the depth chart for your savior. I'm not saying that Rex did the right thing. Both approaches have worked. And both have failed. It's easy to call it out as a bad idea with hindsight. Maybe. Or maybe the implosion of the team would have been even worse. We'll never know. But if changing to Tebow didn't work, it would have been extremely difficult to go back to Sanchez and try to salvage the season after the coach showed so little faith in him. Restoring Sanchez's self-confidence as well as his teammates' confidence in him would have been a monumental task. It's never an easy thing to change horses in mid-stream... Never said Sanchez was flawless or blameless. But those are 2 plays out of hundreds. And you have GAME FILM? I don't mean a recording of the game off of TV. TV shots often don't show the entire field - just where the ball is. And even then it's usually from just one angle. NFL coaches' game film shows the entire field, closeups of multiple areas of action on the field and multiple views of those. Coaches need to know what EVERYONE is doing on the field on every play and HOW they are doing it. I really doubt that you have "game film," unless you broke into Rex's office and stole it... Um, a "power run" means that the runner "powers" straight thru the Defense, no cutbacks, etc. It's a punch-it-thru approach without any style or finesse. Tebow isn't an elusive runner and isn't great at changing direction quickly. He uses his physical strength (and he's a strong guy, even by NFL standards) to bull his way thru. Living outside of the greater New York metropolitan area (Waaaaaay down south in Central Florida, deep in "Gator" country), I didn't get to hear every little nugget that dropped out of Coach Ryan's mouth. So you got any links to get me up to speed on that?
If you were doing that, you'd take into account how easy it is even for shitty QBs to win games when a defense holds teams to 15 points or less. If you took that into account, you wouldn't be drooling over his win loss record of 9-7. You STILL dodge the issue when I tell you what Orton's record was when that happened, and for good reason. It doesn't make Tebow look that impressive. If you were taking context into account, you would probably consider he had a pretty good roster around him in Florida, which helped his numbers quite a bit. If you were taking context into account, you wouldn't be nearly as impressed with those stat sheets you guys keep posting when insisting he's as good or better than guys like Steve Young or John Elway in their early years. No, it seems context is only taken into account when somehow spinning a criticism away from Tebow. To anyone else taking the WHOLE PICTURE into account, Tebow really isn't all that impressive.
Bingo, I've heard it called the "run-option" a lot more. this is why the Bronco playbook during the Tebow era was really really run heavy. People act as if he were doing the same thing RGIII and others are doing as if they are simply doing what Tebow was doing all along. It isn't. Those other teams are willing to throw a lot more because they can actually hit the broad side of a barn. Tebow can't, which is why the Bronco coaching staff took that route. ...and it actually worked for a while. The reports may have been anonymous, but it HAD to be part of the equation when considering what the rest of the team would do if they started Tebow. You can find quotes from some players saying nice things about tebow, but if you have guys saying he's "terrible," you gotta wonder if all putting Tebow in would do is cause more drama. I'm wondering if behind the scenes if it were more well known that the team wasn't 100% behind the idea of Tebow starting. Besides, I'm not sure what Tebowners are getting bent out of shape for. If the team and organization isn't 100% behind Tebow, (and they weren't,) then it probably did him a favor by not putting him out there to embarrass himself further playing with a team not committed to him in the first place. What possible good can come from that? Did we not just hear from their ex coaches that they didn't practice many plays with him, or that they really didn't bother playing him as much as they could or should have? All they've done is devalue him. Doesn't strike me as a good situation to be in to begin with, so I'm not sure what the Tebowners really thought they'd gain by giving him a start or two at the end of the season. True, the Jets record couldn't have been worse had they done so, but Tebow's sure could.
It was specifically referred to as "run-option" by one guy on a blog that you found. Here's a piece from NFL.com, what I would consider to be a more authoritative source. http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-films...25be2c0/Anatomy-of-a-Play-Broncos-read-option Another from NFL.com http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...n-to-readoption-to-highlight-tebows-strengths So yes, Tebow did run the "read option" in Denver. In the context of that conversation, yeah, that would work. Just about all QBs have bad games now and then. Take a guy like Eli. It would take a hell of a lot for him to get benched. Or Drew Brees, he might throw 4 INTs in a game, but there's no chance that he's going to get benched anytime soon. Hell, Matt Ryan won't even get benched after a bad game or two. Difference is that these guys haven't been so inconsistent. They have all played at or near an elite level for some time. Maybe not enough to get over the hump in the playoffs, but they've done more than shown flashes now and then. Sanchez isn't in that category. He hasn't taken that leap yet. Even in his first 2 years when the Jets made the AFCC, his play was very erratic. Rex did that last year and when the Jets lost their last 3 games of the season, and the previous years when Mark played poorly yet remained the starter. He continued that when Sanchez was the starter coming into this year and didnt face the threat of a QB competition. I submit that supporting your starter "unwaveringly" is a mistake. Rex tacitly admitted this when he FINALLY benched Sanchez for the final two games of the season. As for the rest of the team, they get the message that it's ok to fuck up and suck at your position, that you don't have to worry about someone else taking your job. If you have a decent sized contract, you are going to start and you are going to play. Well, at least if your name is Mark Sanchez anyways. Again, don't take it the wrong way as I'm not saying that the coach should have a quick trigger and that all QBs, or any QBs should be on that short of a leash. You have to look at the overall picture and the history of the QBs play. Mark Sanchez clearly deserved to be benched by the 6th game of this season as his overall play was that bad. Of course you are trying to claim that Rex did the right thing, otherwise you wouldn't be defending it. Didn't say that it would be "easy", but an NFL coach's job isnt "easy", nor is it supposed to be. He's supposed to be making those difficult and hard decisions. Could the team have imploded ? Possibly, yet doubtful. Teams have a tendency to rally around new QBs, at least for the short term. Would have been different if large numbers of the team thought that Sanchez had been treated unfairly. You know, like if he was yanked after throwing 1 interception or something. As poorly as he was playing, I don't think the team would have "imploded" at all. Now, it's possible that Tebow and McElroy might not have been successful, but that's a chance that you have to take when your starter is playing that poorly. As for going back to Sanchez, you don't do it immediately after seeing that your backups aren't fairing any better. You continue to send them out there even if the team is languishing. The hope is that your starter has this feeling well up inside him that he could do better, that he needs to get his shit together and take the reigns back as the starter. If that doesn't happen, it answers your questions about him. If I benched a starter and he didnt get pissed off and subsequently try harder to get the starting job again, then I don't want him on the team. You can even take him aside privately and have that discussion. "Mark, it's your choice, if you want to lead this team again, then SHOW ME that you can do it. Just know that if I have to bench you again, it will be permanent. I have faith in you son, but you've got to repay that faith by showing it to me on the field and by leading this team." Those plays are indicative of Mark's problems. Hahahah, you have no idea what the All22 film is ? It's the overhead shot of the field that shows all 22 players during the play. It's available from the NFL via Game Rewind: https://gamerewind.nfl.com/nflgr/se...ampaign=Prod_GR_Nav&cvsorc=Homepage.GR.GP_Nav Actually, in the NFL and College running game, Power has a different meaning. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Want-to-learn-the-base-NFL-run-game.html What you won't find listed there as a "Power run" is someone taking a direct snap in the backfield and plunging head first into the line". The runs are called "Power" because of ALL the "power" that's aligned against the defense, from the lead blocker(s) that precede the RB. So, you all don't have ESPN or Google down there ? For 2009 and 2010, go to Google and search "Ryan Jets Ground and Pound", on the results page, hit Search Tools, then click on "Any Time" and select a custom date. Put in a range from Jan 09 to December 10. You'll find all kinds of articles. For Rex's change in philosophy:
Yet another person who has no clue about Option football trying to discuss Option football. It's laughable. Google exists. Type in Read Option and find out what it means before running your mouth about it. You also have guys who have come out publicy and straight up said that they believe Tebow should have been given a chance. Because over the course of a game, even with crappy play calling, Tebow generally makes stuff happen. You know, those unscripted moments. Perhaps he scrambles 60 yds for a TD, or he scrambles around in the backfield, stiff arms another LB and finds Hill streaking down the sideline for a TD ? Or maybe it's just some nice 12 yard gains going down the field. That said, what us Tebowners, myself at least, are upset about is that it doesn't appear that the Jets even tried to use Tebow. I'd wager that even if he came in and ran exactly the same plays that were called for Sanchez, he would have done a better job of it. Yes, that includes throwing the ball.
Funny, the NY Jets defense held a number of teams to 15 points or less and Mark Sanchez, a shitty QB managed to lose those games. Sure he had a good roster around him. Other QBs in college have had good rosters around them and not didn't do as well. Here's something you just can't seem to fathom, even with those good rosters, guys that actually know what they are talking about consider Tebow to be one of, if not the best QBs to ever play college football. Guess what ? Peyton Manning isnt in that coversation, nor is Eli, or Brady, or Brees, or Rodgers. Sure we would. What context are you going to provide that would change that opinion ? Newsflash for you, Elway and Young weren't that good in their first starts in the NFL. It took time for them to become good QBs. Sure, the capability was within them all along, but they had to LEARN and DEVELOP. It's laughable that you want to talk about taking the whole picture into account, when the fact is, your view is so fucking narrow that your eyes are barely even open.
*sigh* OK, this is another "semantics" issue. Going to wikipedia, I found this definition of a "read-option." So yeah, by that definition, Tebow ran a "read-option" in Denver. A very simple, single read system. The other QBs like RGIII, Kaep and Wilson are running far more sophisticated versions than the Pop Warner playbook which John Fox and Mike McCoy slapped together mid-season for Tebow. It's 2 totally different animals. So some analysts have been a bit more insistent on differentiating them. Whether it was a mistake or not, I was only playing "Devil's Advocate" in pointing it out. As I pointed out, prior to last season, Mark Sanchez had a 27-20 (.575) record and 2 consecutive AFCCG appearances on his record. He may not be a HoF QB, but he wasn't exactly a lump of shit either. I do think that Rex felt Sanchez was the only starting caliber QB on the team and that if they went to Tebow the Jets would have more strongly resembled Denver's 1-4 finish in 2011 than Timmy's 7-1 start. Or you try to fix your QB's problems. Or adjust the scheme to compensate. Changing QBs is a HUGE move. On a par with firing an Offensive Coordinator during the season. It's normally a sign of extreme desperation. A coach does that when he simply can't think of anything else to do. Doesn't the backup have to show that they can do it better than the starter? Isn't the logical place for that to happen during practices? By all accounts, Tebow failed to show enough there to inspire anyone's confidence in him. That's why he was leapfrogged by McElroy (like Tebow leapfrogged Brady Quinn in Denver). Nope. Had no idea. And being the cheap SOB I am (my daughter's starting college this fall) it's going to stay unknown to me. However, I will concede that you have coach's gamefilm. I didn't say anything about simply diving headfirst into the line. I was talking about Tebow being a power runner. He's not particularly fast or elusive. He generally won't bounce off a tackler. Whether he's going straight up the gut or around the outside, he runs a simple track. When he runs into the Defense, he doesn't try to skip around them. He lowers his shoulder and hits them as hard as he can trying to either run them over or at least push them backwards to pick up another yard or two before he goes down. It was YOUR argument. I don't think it's out of line to ask you to back it up.
