That was a sweet play design - I don't know if they planned it that way or not, but the NE defenders ended up picking each other. Nice work Schotty.
I agree - the more I think about it, the more I stand by it. We should be able to punch it in from there. That's the type of team we should be. The Pats had no prob punching it in from the same distance.
Isn't that the point of why the coaching staff blew it? The Pats are better than us on both lines, much better and they have been playing together forever. Our strength is our QB and the depth of our WR corp. The Pats weakness is their speed to the outside at LB and their inexperience playing together in the secondary.
I think penalties and dropped passes more than anything cost us this game. We lost probably over 100 yards of offense in penalties and dropped balls. Also, the missed kick really took the wind outta our sails... When everything finally clicks I think we'll be a solid club but hopefully it's not too late when that starts to happen.
Bingo..... you stole my thunder Bubba Franks is an excellent red zone target and Keller certainly looks like he could be as well. My buddy who is a Packers fan asked me if the Jets had ever watched any film of Favre in goal line situations in Green Bay? He said they always rolled out and 90% of the time they'd score TD's instead of kick FG's. We have 3 pretty good TE's on this team why not use a down to attempt to get the ball to one of them. On the bright side at least they didn't try the fade route.
Maybe Eric/Shotty/Sutton & Callahan should do a few laps around the track for there mistakes just like they force the players to do when they screw up
I've been saying that for a while now. Why is Mangini attacking Pats at where they are strongest? I have absolutely no clue. Any strategist or tactician worth his salt *and with his Arts of War somewhere in his arsenal* will tell you to go at the opponent's weakest link, not the strongest. Is Mangini this stupid not to realize that? I think so.
I am a believer that if you get 1st and goal from within the 5 yard line - you HAVE to take a shot at play action at least once. I can live with the results because I understand what they were trying to do... but being a monday-morning QB it is too easy for me not to wonder why not try to keep the D honest?
I thought so too, but after watching that 3rd down play again, it would've been hard to get some kind of play-action off in time with Richard Seymour that deep in our backfield. Chances are, Favre would've gotten sacked for a loss or would've thrown an errant pass or pick. I'm pissed about the play-calling with 3 running plays knowing we have Favre at the helm, but I have to admit, the play-callers def made the adjustments on our second trip near the goal line and threw the ball, which resulted in a TD. Let's hope Mangini/Schotty learn this lesson and implement it earlier in the games.
Couldn't they [gameplan] ahead of time, so they could actually score on the first try? What's the point of gameplanning if they will fail at the first crack all the time, only to adjust in the second half?
there were numerous things i hated about it. throughout the game im screaming wheres keller. theyre using franks to try to drive the field , he should only be in at the red zone. lack of spreading the field against a thin patriots secondary. i seriously thought wed take more shots at them not directly upfeild just multiple WR sets challenging them. yes i saw pass plays called but cotchery was doubled and probably his first read so that again is shitty playcalling if you dont notice cotchery being shaded the first half you throw in 2 more WR's and tell him to work the slots. plaina nd simple we could literally go on forever but its just time to see how they react after this game and if they can make adjustments in midgame. because ultimately thats what killed us.
I have to agree with Broadway Brett and say, seeing how efficient we were running the ball, there really was no way to tell we weren't going to be successful in scoring that touchdown by pounding it up the middle. That takes the 1st down out, because I would've ran it as well. I would've taken a shot on 2nd down maybe with a play-action, but it's possible Belicheck was anticipating it as well, who knows. So, we tried running it and gained another yard. By this time, the 3rd play, regardless of what we would've ran (unless it was a quick corner fade) that play was doom to bust.
Good point. I still think running the ball was the right thing to do, but it did work the other way later. I guess they can credit adjustments for that. Regardless, of all the poor coaching on Sunday, I still think this sequence was the least poor of them all.
The focus on the OL getting it in and how come they didn't is certainly worthy of attention, but the flip side as IS indicates is that the NE secondary is the comparatively weak part of their D. They might have the best starting DL in the league right now. On the other hand none of us know how the collapsed field passing attack is executing, for screens and the like.
Why is everyone focusing on the goal line plays? It was 60 minuted worth of football, not just 3 plays at the goal line. The only deep shot we took actually worked and the asshole ref called Cotch for PI.....which was close but on replay you can see the DB was already falling and Jerricho only used his hands to keep himself from being taken down too. When we had our first possession and Jones had 2 runs of 10+ yards, you use PA and go deep, of just drop back and bomb one..... It's starting to look like the WRs are the problem....but I don't think so, I think they just need to be given a shot....look at what Favre has worked with the last 2 seasons....
Those are the plays that directly determine points, we left four on the field right there. The missed FG was another three, we only lost the game by nine and the Pats didn't leave any points on the field.
It may have been ego that got in the way? Game planning isn't very passionate. Mangini may have felt at that moment he wanted to go right at the Pats strength and try and break them mentally and give the Jets a big lift. It didn't work and ended up playing right into the Pats hands.
I thought of that possibility as well, and while I can understand the logic there, consider this: 1. If you go at their point of strength, and succeed, fine. Mission accomplished. 2. What if you fail? That boosts their morale, while your morale falls down to the ground. Instead, if they attacked the Pats' weakness slowly, then rammed at them when Pats D was exhausted (the reverse had happened in the game. How ironic) 3. Their morale will be dusts no matter the situation; they will be TIRED. 4. If your attack on their weakness was successful (you can't fail that unless you are devoid of talent) that boosts your morale. 5. It's less likely to fail. Now, what's your job as a coach? Isn't it to win the game in the end? If there is a fail-proof method waiting, why go with risk involving gambit? I just don't understand the logic here.
