McKnight says Jets Offense is Relieved

You are right about the running back position but don't forget about the WR position either. While Schottenheimer/Sanchez had talented guys come through the door that door was also always revolving.

Ironically the Jets Ownership and FO have stressed continuity yet have largely ignored this when it comes to the roster. I know its the NFL and the nature of the game is people coming and going, but Mark Sanchez has NEVER had back to back seasons with the same top two WR combination. And he's NEVER had a single WR whose been around his whole career to develop a rapport with (were only talking 3 1/2 years!).

If Im developing a young QB I would want him to feel comfortable with the guys he will be throwing too and the Jets front office has done just the opposite. The only guy Sanchez has had all along was Keller and that is probably why when the going got tough last year he would love to look for him - Keller is a limited TE but he's the only guy that Sanchez will know where he is.

It's easy to blame last year on Schottenheimer but its also painfully obvious that the F.O. didn't help him at all. They've been constantly shuffling personnel and getting progressively less talented on that side of the ball where they haven't been as much on the defensive side. When it looked "chaotic" last year on offense, its because it was - and that's not because of Schottenheimer, that's a lack of continuity and talent on the field.

Bringing Sparano in isn't going to change the fact that the offense has become second-fiddle in the eyes of Rex, and the F.O.

You would think it would be just the opposite with a bright defensive mind like Rex Ryan you would dedicate most resources towards building a good offense and let Rex work his magic with whoever they can on defense. This hasn't happened and Rex/Tannenbaum may well lose their jobs if they don't get smart and acquire more YOUNG talent on offense (drafting Hill was a good start).

 

They have 4 young backs, Hill on the outside, Kerley in the slot and Holmes on the other side or in the slot as well.

Sanchez no longer lacks talent he can grow with. Now it's a matter of if all these guys can get on the same page quick enough.

If the young offensive lineman on the team can step up with a chance to start on equal ground with their competition as far as knowing Sparano's scheme we could be on to something.

If not that has to be priority one in the draft.

 

I think it's probably true that an increase in continuity with the receivers, all things being equal, would have been helpful to Sanchez. But I don't give it all that high a significance, for a couple of reasons. First of all I think his main problem is in not reading defenses well. In simple terms it's more about not seeing where defenders are than not knowing where the Jet receivers are. I know that is overly simplistic, and I am not saying he always is in synch with the receivers - obviously that is not the case. I just don't think it is the most significant reason he's been having problems.

Another factor is this is the NFL. Receivers tend to move around. I notice how Joey Flacco had only four of his top ten receivers back going from 10 to 11. Flacco's case might be an extreme one, but it's not all that uncommon.

A third factor is that while the turnover in wideouts has been an issue, Sanchez had continuity with Keller, as you note, and also from 10 to 11 with LT out of the backfield. Focusing only on the wideouts makes it seem a worse situation than if you look at all the receivers.

Of course LT is going to be gone this coming season, so the lack of continuity will still be something of an issue, as Hill also will be new. But Holmes, Kerley and Keller will be back, and even P Turner, as far as that goes.

 

the 4 young backs is very overrated. Only 2 of which have played any significant football and we know they are both very limited in what they can do.

Hill I like the pick but he's obviously a question mark because he hasn't played an NFL down yet and played in an offense where he didn't have to run routes consistently. And Kerley was a nice story last year but he would've been strictly a special teamer for most NFL teams last season - still a question mark.

Sanchez DOES lack the talent he can grow with. Tom Brady probably would be fine with these guys but Sanchez isn't Tom Brady and will never be him. He has shown he has the ability to play at a good level but the F.O. continues to shoot his development in the foot.

The Hill pick is crucial, if he can be a good NFL Wideout and next year the Jets draft/acquire a SOLID every-down running back and don't ignore the OL then we'll see a good Jets offense in 2013- but Schottenheimer would've made that offense look just as good if not better than Sparano if he had that to work with and I don't expect much improvement on offense at all THIS season.

 

Just my opinion... and I am a novice when it comes to formations and such, but I think this simplification will greatly help the OL. That was where a majority of our problems were. Just run the play as called without being concerned with what the defense is doing. Take care of your assignment! On passing plays, the OL will not be concerned with the denfensive coverage... that will be the concern of Sanchez and the receivers to adjust.

Now the pros on here can blow my theory apart. :jets:

 

Not a bad assessment but lets wait and see how Sparano does there is no proof that Schotty is anything other than a mid to below OC. Sparano very well can be worse but he did have success calling plays with Dallas and Boston University scored 436 points his last year of being OC for that school.

 

Fair enough response as far as Sanchez's limitations in reading defenses. It does appear that he has trouble with that but could it be a result of not knowing where his recievers are / going to be? The timing routes were almost non-existent last season.

I think we can definetely agree the best Sanchez has ever looked as a NFL QB was second half of 2010 - He looked very comfortable and settled and played his best when he just trusted himself and his WRs particularly late in games. ie. He looked his best when he had Wide Receivers he was comfortable with! - Holmes, Braylon, Cotchery. That trust was destroyed last season, he never looked comfortable and I think it had a lot to do with not knowing even who he was throwing too ( the changes and the short offseason)

 

Exactly, No matter what coverage the defense is in sometimes you just have to make a play. Shoot Brett Favre put together a Hall of Fame Career throwing into the wrong coverage.

 

An exception that proves the rule. The safety got caught too far inside and did an extremely poor job covering from the hash, as typical of a Texans defense which in 2010 ranked dead last in the league.

 

That's the play that got Cavanaugh in Sanchez face as he was coming to the sidelines after throwing the Holmes fade for the win. Cavanaugh was right in his face, saying don't be happy, you can't throw that pass to Braylon, you just got lucky.

That's a Jet's coach for the win.

The answer, obviously, is that you *have* to make that throw to Braylon and complete it for the Jets to win. The question is whether you can complete it or not. Checking down because the throw on the sidelines is a risky one is just another way to lose a 4 point game.

 

Watch the whole sequence. Not in your clip but in the highlights of that game. Sanchez throws the fade to Holmes. Jets win. Everybody is happy. Sanchez is jumping around. Edwards and Holmes are bumping and jumping around. Sanchez gets to the sidelines and Cavanaugh is right on his chest, in his face and unhappy. Sanchez goes to grim and pissed off. Jets win. Jets lose in the process.

It helps to read lips some too.

 

No, not really. What you do see occasionally is a successful throw against a Tampa 2 kind of look into what they call the "honey hole" in that zone.

Successful deep sideline throws against cover 2 man under are few and far between. Good decisions on that throw against that coverage are almost nil. If a quarterback is going to attempt that throw against that coverage with any regularity, then I want to play against him, preferably twice a year.

When you see it completed, it's almost always some kind of mistake or poor play in coverage. In the case cited above, it's just a perfect throw by Sanchez with a late cover by the safety, who regardless of Sanchez looking him off should be able to get over there if he's a starter quality NFL player. There's actually a similar Sanchez/B. Edwards play against the Dolphins in '09 that was also completed, where Edwards even said after the game that it was a ball that shouldn't have been thrown. In that case, it was another late cover by the safety and a combination of a good throw by Sanchez and a great adjustment by Edwards. So I guess where you see "sucked inside by the seam route" I see "poor play there getting sucked inside by the seam route."

Anyway, the overall argument seems to be heading down a path where there is no such thing as a receiver who is covered or a read that is bad, there are only bad throws, and to me that is ludicrous.

 

There were 24 seconds left on the clock when that play started and no timeouts left and the Jets were at midfield. There was no way to play it safe and win that game. If the throw is a checkdown and the receiver does not get out of bounds the game is down to a hail mary.

That's my point. Sanchez has to take and make that throw or the Jets lose that game. Was it a good throw with 1:40 on the clock and 2 timeouts left? Probably not. But in the game situation the Jets were in their odds on winning the game go to almost nil if Sanchez does not make that throw.

 

A receiver running a deep sideline route against cover 2 man under is not open. Unless an error has been made physically or mentally by the defense, throwing it to him is a mistake and the play will not be successful.

You can find examples of guys "every week" double and triple covered who still come down with catches. Quarterbacks get away with dumb decisions all the time, either by luck, by a great play by the WR or because the defender did even something dumber than the quarterback did.

A successful outcome is not proof of a smart decision. You are taking one example of a bad decision that sometimes ends up successfully and trying to turn it into a good decision. I disagree. My statement in my other post was an attempt to show how the logic you are using fails when applied to the broader issue as a way of showing it fails in the specific issue as well. Either that mode of thinking and decision making is good or it's bad. I think it's bad. You're free to think it's good if you want to.

 

I think this is a good point. Desperate times do call for desperate measures and you end up having to throw a lot of the rules out the window.