In order to reap the best rewards, you need to take big risks. The onside kick was a great move by Mangini. Our D had been overachieving all day and it was only a matter of time before Grossman would hit his famous "thrown off my back foot 40 yard jump ball." Rather than sit there and allow the bears offense to get into sync, he decided to take a risk. Obviously it didn't work out as planned, but regardless, people who said it was a horrible decision are blinded by hindsight. If you hated this call, then you must have hated the onside kick against Indy. It's not like we onside kick to open every half.
No, but I would think it's wise to refrain from that sort of chicanery, when TWO of your former special teams players are on the opposing sideline (Strait, McClover...)
Stop it right now. You're about to upset the balance of a very delicate bunch. When Herm was here they bitched he was too conservative, now we have someone willing to take chances, which is fantastic, and they say he's horrible and cost us the game. It's masochism. There is no other way as a Jet fan. Everyone is a better coach than the coach, and has all the answers in hindsight.
Right, so I suppose everytime a player leaves the Jets, we have to revert to some secret plan that nobody else knows about?
The best call? I wouldn't say that, but it wasn't awful. If you think they were even concerned about guys cut months ago, you're kidding yourselves. I believe it was one of those things where they played the play right, and then Chicago says after the game, "OH YEAH, WE KNEW, HE WAS ON THE FIELD" where they do not even notice or say boo if the play works. It's all about execution boys.
I agree with this post. It's unfortunate that McClover was able to identify the pending onside kick, but this was a great decision. As previously pointed out in the post, we would have killed for Herm to do something like that... to blast this decision in hindsight is weak. Having this not go the way it was planned set us back, but it didn't cost us the game. Bigger reasons we lost the game... -Two huge interceptions by Chad, and overall shit play. -Drew Coleman falling on his ass on what should've been a 5-8 yard play. -Penalties. Penalties. Penalties. -The decision to not go for it on 4th down in the 4th quarter. I almost feel like the Jets went into a shell at the end of the game. We took ourselves out of it. Live and learn, on to Houston.
If Mangini was so concerned about gaining another offensive possession, why did he throw away a possession before the half? A better play, with lower risk and nearly equal reward possibilities would've been to have Chad throw a couple of deep passes (as far as he could) down the sideline and hope for a reception or interference call. I didn't like that Mangini chose to run out the clock there, but I respected his decision to play it conservatively there. To then come out and try such a high risk play was incongruous with the rest of his game calling. Random aggressiveness. You heard him say it in interview--they were going to call the play no matter what. Sorry, the smart move there is to take the temperature of the team and the game and then decide what plays to run.
I wouldn't have done it..... but it was worth a try and I don't have a problem with the onsides kick.
I love the onside kick if you are up or if it is a very offensive game and you cannot stop the opposing team. In this kind of game I think it is bad to give suc a short field to the opposing team. You must work to get the best field position at all time sand I don't like the call... Later, Djure
It was not worth the risk. Grossman was rattled and could not move the ball. We had every reason to believe the D would have forced a 3 & out & get the ball back to the O in the same field position. The risk of giving Chicago the ball with an extremely short field was not worth the reward..
I would have rather seen some other sort of trick play, preferrably involving Brad Smith with him actually throwing the ball rather than running it. Chicago seemed prone to fall for misdirection, such as the Dwight end-around.
The onside kick was just a bad call. There was no reason to help the Bears offense in any way and there was maybe an 80% chance they'd get excellent field position to start the second half off of that kick. The only reason I can see for making the call is if Mangini felt that the Jets were 80% likely to lose anyway if they didn't grab the momentum right away in the second half. As it was they handed it to the Bears instead.
At Halftime, I thought the Bears were going to win. I don't know if it was at 80%, but it was close. I thought we gave the Bears our best shot in the 1st half and got nothing for it. I didn't think our D would hold them in check the rest of the game (which they did, but you have to consider what you are thinking AT THE TIME). Really, Chicago never moved the ball on us. 1 missed tackle was their TD.
Actually, At the half I thought we were going to win. We were winning in the trenches, and I expected the Offense to continue to run, and break out some passing game adjustments.
Bingo. We were beating up the bears in the 1st half....there is no reason to do this now and give chicago the momentum......i like the idea and aggressiveness as a whole, but this was the wrong time IMO
Jesus H. Christ on a cross. If the call had worked, people would still be here praising "Mangenious" and NO ONE, NOT ONE PERSON, would be saying "Well, it worked, but we got lucky." It was a risk. A "random risk." That means it was not planned. At least not until halftime. We were holding off the Bears, not beating them. If we were even remotely "beating them" we would have had some points in the first half. We didn't. Zip, zero, none. Like JI2004 said, at the time, there was no way you could honestly believe that the Jets D was going to be able to contain the best offense in the NFC, and a Super Bowl favorite. And as was said by vxvenom, were you complaining about it when it worked earlier this year? Highly doubtful. This is the meaning of risk fellas. Had it worked, we'd probably have scored on that drive, at least 3, and we'd be playing with the lead in front of an electrified crowd.
If you want to give Mangini a pass for the bad decision that's one thing but I just don't see how you can say this was a good call. It's less about aggressive and conservative then it is about being smart. This wasn't a smart play. The reward for taking the risk can't be justified in a game like Sundays.
Of course you could honestly believe that the Jets D was going to be able to contain the best offense in the NFC. They completely shut down that O for the first half & there was no reason to believe that would change in the 2nd half. And to compare this one to the one in the Indy game makes no sense whatsoever, they were the complete opposite games. The Indy game you were gonna need all the points you could get to win, this game you just needed points. They are totally different situations and can't be compared..
Yes that is the meaning of risk but when the risk far outweighs the reward it is a bad time to take that risk, therefore making it a bad call. And what makes you think they probably would have scored. They had decent field position the whole first half and didn't score a point..
