and 2 TDs but hey complaining and leaving that out obviously strengthens your point no matter how wrong it is
82 yards that came on some big third downs and two touchdowns. numbers dont mean shit in the context of a game, and they got it done big time against the colts. they were missing some key pieces huh? well i hate to break it to you, but so are the jets... this is the nfl. no team is a pushover, especially not a 2-2 team coming off a big win against the packers. no touchdowns for the opponent is always a good stat. the offense looked good, most importantly the line looked like they had their shit together. so much so that moving slauson into center didnt derail the play of the unit one bit. the team played a good game, no need to discount that cause it was against a supposed inferior opponent. would you rather they lost? or was the win just not big enough for you?
This league is so funny every week is diffrent,We beat the Colts who beat the Packers,we lost to the Texans who lost to the Packers , nothing is ever what it seems
Yep. This has been Rex's gameplan since day one. We saw it in 2009. We saw it a little in 2010. We haven't seen it since. Nice to have it back, we'll see if it's sustainable.
Ground and Pound is the refuge of defensively oriented teams that don't want to spend a lot of value in the draft on the offense. I was thinking about this the other night and it occurred to me that the Jets are not the first team this decade to have trouble developing a young QB despite having legitimate playoff aspirations as they tried to do this. The Chicago Bears used a 1st round pick on Rex Grossman in 2003. They had just picked a DE also in that 1st round. They picked DT's 1 and 2 in 2004. They picked a RB and a WR 1 and 2 in 2005. Then back to a FS in round 2 in 2006. Grossman never had critical mass on that side of the ball and failed as their QB. The Baltimore Ravens picked Kyle Boller in 2003. They had just taken a LB also in the 1st round. They picked a DT in round 2 in 2004. They picked a WR, a LB and a T in 2005 1, 2 and 2. In 2006 DT and C. The Indianapolis Colts picked Peyton Manning in 1998. They took 2 WR's right behind him and 2 G's in that draft also. They took a RB with the 1st in 1999 and a LB in the 2nd. They took 2 LB's 1 and 2 in 2000. They took a WR and a FS in 2001. The Jets took Mark Sanchez in 2009. They had no 2nd because of the tradeup. They took a CB and a T in 2010. They took a DT in 2011. They had no 2nd that year. They took a DE and a WR in 2012. Looking at the talent in the 4 situations it's pretty clear that the Jets basically picked Mark Sanchez and then abandoned him, taking mostly defensive value after that in the draft. Even the Ravens didn't ditch Kyle Boller to the extent that the Jets did Sanchez. You get what you pay for. The Jets plan was essentially a recipe for failure with Sanchez that would have required him becoming one of the best QB's in recent memory for that failure not to be realized. If the Colts had done with Manning what the Jets did with Sanchez there's no way Peyton becomes one of the greatest of all time.
The running game was so good, on first down in the middle of the second quarter and I cant remember the exact play, we ran for two first downs and on the next first down, we passed..incomplete...2nd and 10. I turned to my buddy sitting next to me at the game and said "shit!...its working...why would you pass now?" Showing true hypocrisy, coming from a fan who bitches all the time about running on first down.....I showed my true colors of bitching no matter what. Sparano was great. The only thing i would have done differently is once up by more than two touchdowns with a great running game...air one out to Hill and let him jet...just to show we will even with a good running game. Again...hypocrite...hypocrite...hypocrite.....
Yeah its too bad we lost 2 of our 3 running backs to injury in the game. So we face the Pats next week without Powell or McKnight. They gave nice breathers to Greene.
I think we also need to love the fact that even though the run was working we did not try and get cute or try and get away from it. There have been many instances where we went away from what was working for reasons unbeknowst to man. The other thing I like about the two big wins we've had is that even though we were up we didn't take the foot off the gas pedal. The talent might not be there but the last two weeks the gameplan has been and you have to like that. I was down on Rex but these last two games he has really shown that he can coach in this league. Next week will be tough but I'm expecting the playbook to be open fully next week.
Great point BB. I hate going with all the media hates the Jets nonsense but it really cracks me up how so many have pissed on this win because the Colts have a shit team. Its a shit team when they lose to the Jets but a young and coming when it beats the Packers. The Bills were predicted to go 0-16 because the Jets blew them out..then go on to win the next two...and beat Arizona. Now these teams are not Super Bowl contenders but in the NFL, all wins are good wins. MOST any team can upset any team.
1. There is a reason for stopping the run first. If the offense can consistently pop 5 yards a carry, that will tire the defense, shorten the game and open up play action pass later on. Unless the offense fumbles the ball, there is no gimme downs. Contrast that to pass offenses. Any incomplete pass is a gimme down (no advancement whatsoever), and it has an added bonus of stopping the clock. All in all, when you pass the ball (provided the defense holds their end of the bargain) three things can happen, and two of them are bad. 2. The invariant of the premise above is that you never trail. Once you trail by 2 possessions or more, you cannot play like that. Shortening the game when you are trailing by 14 points or more is asking for self-destruction at its best. 3. By now, you should see what it all mounts to. The goal of the offense and the goal of the defense are exactly the opposite. The goal of the offense is to make the defense defend every inch of the field, against all sorts of plays the offense has in its arsenal. By the same token, you can easily see that the goal of the defense is to force the offense into predictable situation - and no situation is easier to predict than 3rd and long. Sure, you might give up some underneath yardages against draw plays or whatnot, but the offense will fail to convert in the end - which means success for the defense. 4. What's even more demoralizing is when the defense cannot stop the offense even when they know what is coming at them. (Same holds true for the offense; you know they are coming after you, but you just cannot make a thing happen to make them pay.) 5. Now, where are the Jets offense/defense at? They are nowhere near the #4 stage in either side of the ball, and they could do decently against lesser teams. Against better teams, they still choke. We will see how this offense and defense fares against angry Brady and Patriots next week. They must be pissed by now.
It is not. Maybe if you are talking about that marquee QB with top-of-the-line WR that will easily break the bank, then yeah. I am on board. But if you meant any investment at all, then I'd have to say that's not the case either. To effectively play ground-and-pound offense, you need substantial investment in the OL - which Jets just did not bother with. When you run a lot, that will take toll on both RBs and OLs. Hell, it is not uncommon to see linemen roll up their legs during a freak run play and lost for season. So what did Jets do after they drafted Sanchez? We all know Jets had aging vets up front (Moore/Woody) and Jets FO ignored these needs for years. If Jets bolstered these spots as soon as possible with draft picks, they could have had a replacement for Woody as early as last year, with 1 or 2 years of experience under the belt. WFH didn't need to happen. I find it extremely difficult to understand. If you were willing to burn a second round together to grab that stud QB prospect, shouldn't you do the very best you can to (1) provide stable protection and (2) give the kid every help he can get? Jets have done anything but. No wonder Sanchez remains inconsistent and inaccurate. No wonder he keeps running for his life with that deer-in-headlight look. With the running game merely the former shell of itself, Sanchez is out there hanging high and dry. If Peyton Manning had been treated like that, I am more than sure he wouldn't have become what he is now.
Agree on his vision, but his execution of it is weird. Why trade up for a 5th pick QB with all the risks it entails if you want ground£. Save your picks for depth and oline+defense and get a seasoned savvy QB that can game manage. ?
Needed a name to help sell PSL's. That's why Favre was brought here and why Tebow was brought here and why if Sanchez eventually loses his job and Tebow looks like he isn't the long term answer why the Jets will do everything in their power to acquire Geno Smith.
Well you have to have a QB and it's usually a safe bet to take one early. I mean he had Kellen Clemens and Brett Ratliff on the roster when he arrived ... He wasn't going to have a better opportunity to get into the top 10 with Mangini willing to give up picks for his schmuck players. I wouldn't even be surprised if a condition of his hiring was that they were going to take a QB early. He's also not the GM so while he probably had a good amount of input on the decision if Tanny wanted to go QB he was going to go QB.
You need a QB alright, but not at the expense of the Oline and the pass rush, if you going all out ground£. I love Rex but he is not destined for greatness, way to impulse and inconsistent for that.
Geno would make me excited. I am not much for the ground & pound style of football despite routing for Jets. Love stout defences though.
The o-line and pass rush were not problems when he arrived. Again, he's not the GM and the Jets needed a QB.
