Week 10: Bears: 38, Giants 20. Before this week, could you seriously argue that the Jets defense is better than the Giants defense? Please. You guys are arguing simply to argue. There's no way, if I'm Mangini, that I honestly believe that my first half success is going to carry into the second half. I'm counting on Lovie Smith making the proper adjustments to his gameplan during the half. With no score yet, I take that chance. If we recover and score, the crowd goes bezerk. Our D gets fired up. Suddenly we believe we can actually win this game. You are bullshitting if you can sit there and say you wouldn't have been overjoyed had it worked. Like I said, there would not be ONE COMPLAINT on this board had we recovered it, regardless of the outcome of the game. But no. You guys would rather sit and bitch about a coach who has shown this is not the "same old Jets." What would Herm have done in this game? There would have been no onside kick, sure. The final score also would have read something like 68-0, leaving our record at a dismal 1-9, with that one win being a squeaker against Detroit.
Fact of the matter is it didn't work and it was a bad call. I don't think it cost us the game(Penny did that) & I love everything about Mangini so far, that doesn't mean I have to love every call he makes. The risk far outweighed the reward on this one & it completely shifted the momentum..
It was dumb, it amkes his decision to go for it on 4th and G from the 3 against Indy look like a good one. We were in a defensive struggle where points were hard to come by and we gave Chicago 3 free points. Chi played it conservatively and won the game b/c of it. It was a dumb decision that cost us the game.
I understand why he did it, but it was dumb on several levels. If you don't think you can score on them the game plan has to be to pin them deep and make Grossman drive a long field as much as possible in order to force a big play turnover. It also makes a statement to your team that you don't believe they can fight it out without a gimmick in a game where the D was playing great. On another level, I had more confidence that Rhodes would make a game changing score than our O would score a point. Why not leave the D on the field in Chicago's side of the field? I don't think it cost us the game, I think our O being unable to score cost us the game, but it's still an amateurish move at best and I'm glad Mangini is learning in a game that we probably lose anyway.
The title of this thread is a joke, right? We play the 8-1 Bears and stand toe-to-toe with them the entire 1st half. We hold them to zero points in a game in which, if such a thing existed as to a Webster's Dictionary definition of what a "field position game" is, the definition would reference the Bears-Jets game of 2006, our confidence level is high as we exit the tunnel and the smell in the air is one of "we've got your number," and we resort to an idiotic, almost clownish (and poorly executed) OSK. 1) If successful, it still demonstrates a lack of confidence and an admition that perhaps this is the only way we'll get decent field position, while at the same time pissing off the opposing team and providing the emotional spark they need to fire them up and want to succeed all that much more. 2) If unsuccessful, they get the ball on our own 44, in a game of admitted "field position," and they score in what was certainly going to be a low-scoring game... a game in which every FG counts immensely. No... I'm sorry. Dumb call. Mangini is still #1 in my book and I'm not going to impugn and denegrate him over one stupid call... but it WAS a stupid call and I hope he's learned his lesson for awhile. Maybe another time and another place... but not in this game, which by definition, was as close to a "field position game" as you're ever going to see.
That's funny, I thought Chicago won because Chad couldn't sustain a drive. Not to mention their D. But you're right, Mangini is stupid for calling it. He should have called a draw play, like your hero. In fact, maybe he should have had them spike the ball on second down so Nugent could try a field goal. That is the epitome of great coaching. In fact, I think they're giving Chad too much time to read the D. They should wait until there's 5 seconds left on the play clock before sending out the play to him. That way we can get rid of all those confusing options called "time outs" You laugh at me because I don't think the OSK was the end of the world, yet week after week you fought tooth and nail for a moron that repeatedly pulled all the afore mentioned nonsense? That's as rich as it gets! You're right, you are on a different level. Thankfully.
good call,good risk..there was an article in some paper about that call and the odds on it..can someone post it
I think the kick may have been a sorta OK call at the time, but I do not think the execution was the best. I do not think that particular method of Nugent walking away from the ball turning abruptly and doing the onsides kick will ever fool anybody. The traditional approach would have been a better try. In full retrospect, I think where the game was at that time, I may have opted to just kick off. Our D had their O in check at the time and we were tied 0-0. I will take Mangini's coaching and gambles over the monotony of Edwards and company any day of the week.
What Winstonbiggs said. The effects of the onsides kick decision were manifold and all bad: 1. You have an 80% chance to effectively commit a turnover by giving the Bears 30 yards or more of field position that they would otherwise not have at the start of the second half. 2. You have an 80% chance of shutting the crowd up as they sit back in their seats in disbelief. 3. You have an 80% chance of telling your team: "okay guys we're desperate, we have to resort to low percentage gimmicks to have any chance to win this game." All of this balanced against a 20% chance to get the ball... It was a loser move. I like Mangini a lot but this was just a boneheaded mistake that appears to have been driven by a truly misplaced urge to gamble at a crucial time in the game.
I hope that Mangini, despite publicly supporting the call, sits back in his office during his quiet moments and asks himself, "WTF was I really thinking?"
While the OSK may have not been the best call in the world the Jets still had ample time to rebound. In fact, right after the FG the Jets drove into FG territory only to have Pennington throw an interception. They also had another offensive possession prior to the 57 yard TD pass from Grossman. While much of the talk has been about the OSK, the sad fact is that the Jets failed to score any points in the game. Therefore, the OSK wasn't the crucial factor in the dame.
0-0 at the half......why risk it....if it was 10-0 Bears than I would have been all for it......that play changed the momentum of the game.
If Pennington doesn't throw the INT on the series after the Chicago FG and the Jets get the three points back (or go in for a TD) would you still say the play changed the mometum?
I could not agree more. The Bears did not need a short field to begin the second half. Kudos to the D for only giving up three.
In a word, yes. Chicago got the ball on our 44-yard line and scored 3 points because they didn't have to move too many chains. But for the tenaciousness of our DEF, they would have had 7 points. Considering the way the game had been going all 1st half, had we not done the OSK and just let Nuge kick it off, our DEF probably would have stopped them somewhere at midfield (holding them to 0 points) and we would have gotten the ball with a chance to drive it down their end. So yes, I'd still say the play not only changed momentum, it cost us points instead of allowing us to score points. To say this cockamamie call cost us the game is unfair because we'll never know, but in a game as tight as this one was, every bit of field position would have helped. God... I'm tired of arguing this point already though.... just not going to respond anymore to anyone who thinks it was a terrific idea.
I don't think anyone ever said it was a terrific idea. I just think some people here don't necessarily think it cost the Jets the game.
Well the title of the thread is "The onside kick was a good call" that to me says the original poster thought that the call was a good one. Which most of us who were against the call disagree with. No it didn't cost us the game, Penny did a fine job doing that himself but it did change the momentum of the game.
