-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jets' Mangini stands by his play-calling By Jane McManus The Journal News ? September 16, 2008 FLORHAM PARK, N.J. - Brett Favre may have been tagged to lead the Jets in the 11th hour of the offseason, pulled in from the frozen tundra and given a crash course in this offense. But after Sunday's 19-10 loss to the visiting Patriots in a division game, the Jets' coaches might need to adjust their game plan to some of his strengths. Coach Eric Mangini was asked yesterday about his ability to use the strengths of his new quarterback. He was grilled particularly on the decision to use essentially the same running play three times in a row when the Jets had first-and-goal from the 3, trailing 6-0 in the second quarter. After about the fifth variation on questions that he perceived as second-guessing him, Mangini looked a reporter right in the eye. "Are we saying that I know we're going to be successful if we do something else?" Mangini asked. Clearly, it's tough when everyone else thinks they can do your job better than you're doing it, especially when the Jets are 1-1 heading to a Monday night game in San Diego. "We're not calling plays in a vacuum," Mangini said. "We're calling plays based on what we think is going to be successful, and if they're not successful, they're not successful. And it wasn't a function of not realizing Brett was here; it was a function of what we thought was going to work at that point, and we adjusted as we went on. "If you knew ahead of time what was going to work and what wasn't going to work, you'd call the ones that would work." Favre, as transparent as any player or coach on the Jets, said he would have liked to try a pass there, but he had no problem following the directions of offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer. "I'm fine with it," Favre said. "My job is to come here and run this offense. Believe me, regardless of the plays that were called, there were some opportunities. I looked at the pictures on the sidelines, and there were some opportunities for some big plays. That falls back on me. "It can go both ways. We didn't score enough points, obviously. Someone is blamed on it, and I think that goes to our whole offense. There were plays to be made." Most of the Jets' players were not second-guessing the play-calling, particularly wide receiver Chansi Stuckey, who caught the only touchdown pass of the game after getting his first game ball in Miami the previous week. "Whatever decision the coaches go with, we're going to follow behind," Stuckey said. Center Nick Mangold was one Jet who was glad to see the sequence of three straight running plays. And he thought the team would get it in the end zone with running back Thomas Jones, who had 11 carries for 36 yards in the first half. "You get a play called up, and being how we were running the ball, we were excited about it and wanted to punch it in there," Mangold said. "And unfortunately we let a couple little technique things keep us from doing that." After looking at film of the game, Mangold said he was struck by how close the team was. Subtract a missed field goal and their six penalties and the Jets had the basics to win the game. "Coach had a lot of confidence. We have a lot of confidence in our offensive line, our running backs - everyone," wide receiver Jerricho Cotchery said. "So when they call the plays, we're going to try to make those plays happen." Note: The Jets signed linebacker Kenwin Cummings and offensive lineman Stanley Daniels to the practice squad. They released offensive lineman Matt McChesney and linebacker Brandon Renkart from the practice squad. Reach Jane McManus at jmcmanus@lohud.com and read the Jets Journal blog at jets.lohudblogs.com. __________________
I obviously disagree with Mangini on the 3 TE set three times in a row but I get the feeling from the article that morale is still high on the team, and that is good. Also, glad they got Cummings back,
with the so called improved oline, they should have been able to punch it into the end zone with just two attemps, never mind getting a third. seymore busted thru the oline on that third down (where our new and improved left guard and #1 4th overall) and set the tone for the rest of the game. i think we all knew right then and there what kind of day it was going to be for the jets!!
That dead kid propped up in the corner cracks me up every time. Without fail. I think everyone here should know what it is, if they don't already. LINK
Of course Mangini is going to agree with the play calling. What is he going to say, "I wanted to see what my improved offensive line could do in that situation (against one of the best defnsive lines in football) and now I have my answer. It probably costed us a chance at winning the game. Oh, expect us to do a 180 against San Diego and open it up against them." Mangini played his answer tight to the vest. Predictable. Anybody else would have done the same thing.
I have no issue with running the ball at the goal line. My issue is it failed. At some point teams have to exert their physical dominance on the oposition. Goal line situations are the opportunity to do it. The reality is when you fail, you have submitted to the opposition. Perhaps the real problem is our coaching staff over estimated our strength and underestimated the Pats strength. If you really think about it and were game planning for a week, would you go after Seymour and Wilfork or after the Pats slow LB's and inexperienced Secondary? At the time the way we were running the ball I really wanted us to punch it in on the ground. Had I been a coach game planning the Pats, I would have gone after the LB or secondary in the air.
You should be able to run the damn ball in from the 3 yard line in 3 trys. We were rushing at a rate of 6 YPC at the time - what was so bad about trying to shove it down there throats? They need to block better.
Im still baffled to why he tried running it up the middle on one of the best d-lines in football that constantly own us 2 straight times instead of letting the best qb of all time take a shot or two. FUCKIN BAFFLED!
Exactly. What would Belicheat have done if the roles were reversed? Thrown the ball and scored. The macho punch it in bullshit is meaningless unless you win games. That's why it comes down to coaching. Prove shit in science class. Win games on the field, that's all that matters.
Clearly an attempt to make a statement, as much as points. Damien Woody as much as said that. It may just also be that the statement, in that series, was "There's no Brady on your defense."
On first and second down we gained 1 yard making it 3rd and 1 to the goal. If we passed there and it was incomplete people would be up in arms wondering why we didn't run from the one yard line with our new O-line and Tony Richardson after having gained a yard on 1st and second down. I'm 100% sure of it.
the next time they were in a similar situation, they threw the ball....got the TD. so they've learned their lesson (the hard way). so, let's cut the coaches some slack. it was the 2nd game for god sake.
It's Tuesday and I am still not ready to decide whether this one was more on the CS or the OL. F it, I'll blame them both! In fairness to the CL, not much room to pass on the 3 yard line, and who knows how much work Favre and the rb's have done on screens. The other point, not really supporting the previous one, is while the OL is better than last year, that doesn't mean it is (yet) up to par with NE's front seven. Bottom line is they didn't get it done, and that was huge in terms of the outcome. Either the Jets show improvement across the board, and there is room for that, or we saw on Sunday the beginnings of another disappointing season.
Wahoo and Sunday Jack said it best. It was trying to make a statement. However, (IMHO) the point is to score TD's and not make statements. Why play to the Pats strength at that point? I could give a sh*t about making statements. I'd take the "cheap" TD every time. The first two runs at the goal-line looked pretty bad. I didn't have confidence that a third rushing attempt would punch it in. Why not keep the "D" guessing and pass on one of the first two plays? And of course Mangini is going to defend his position. What coach is going to question his own play-calling in front of the media? Of course, it always comes to player execution. However the point of the CD is to put the players in the best position to be successful and many agree that the offensive calls at tha point did not do that.
Why play to the pats strength? While I do agree there front 7 is there strength, we were gashing them for 6 yards per carry at that point in the game. SIX YARDS PER CARRY. We gained a yard on 1st and 2nd down making it 3rd and 1 to the goal. What is so absurd about thinking we can gain 1 more yard at that point?
