Through 10 games last season, the Washington Redskins were 3-6. They were pretty much out of the playoff picture, obviously, basically needing to run the table to get into the playoffs. Their quarterback had been considered finished just 2 years ago before having a resurgence in 2005, leading the Redskins to a 10-6 record and a playoff birth, by leading a ball control offense, throwing for 6.7 yards per attempt on a 57.7% completion percentage. In 2006, he threw for a higher percentage, at 62.2%, the yards per attempt was similar at 6.9 yards per attempt, but the offense was just less explosive. Yards per completion were down, as Brunell had a harder time getting the ball to his main playmaker Santana Moss, even though his completion percentage was up, including setting the NFL record for consecutive completions in a game, with 22 that season. Enter Jason Campbell. He was drafted late in the 1st round, considered the quarterback of the future, but as a late first rounder, he wasn't quite a can't miss. He was a strong armed quarterback, whom a lot of people wanted to play earlier that season, thinking Brunell was finished. At 3-6, the season was just about over, and while Brunell wasn't playing poorly, he was benched in favor of the younger, more exciting Campbell. Many people felt Brunell was scapegoated for the Redskins' underperformance, but Campbell was the future, so the well-liked, weak-armed veteran was benched in favor of the Redskins seeing what they had in Campbell. Campbell had a few exciting moments, winning a few games, including an exciting come from behind win against a pretty solid Eagles defense. In 2007, the redskins are off to a 2-1 start, and while Campbell still is growing up, he has some experience under his belt, and looks like he could be a quarterback in the future. The 2006 New York Jets took everyone by surprise. The quarterback position was a pure crapshoot, with the veteran Pennington coming off injuries, with his arm hanging on by a thread. A 2nd round pick was made on Kellen Clemens, a more strong armed gunslinger from Oregon, whom a lot of people were very high on. Pennington won the job out of preseason easily, leading a ball control offense into the playoffs, with some big plays made once in a while by Coles and Cotchery. Clemens waited on the bench for his shot, still considered the future. He was comeback player of the year, but with a weak arm and a very injury-prone past, people weren't sure how long he could last as the starter. In 2007, the Jets penned in Pennington as the quarterback, but the year started off slowly. The offense did little in the first few games, although Pennington was throwing to a completion percentage in the mid-high 70s, an almost unheard of percentage. Yet, the yards/attempt was still just 7.1. The yards per completion was down, and the Jets started off 1-3, despite Pennington throwing to near-record completion percentages. An injury to Pennington gave Clemens a chance in week 2 to show what he had. In the first half, he suffered through many jitters, dancing in the pocket to an intense blitz too often. But in the 2nd half, the Jets had a brand new dimension to the offense which they hadn't had in a few seasons. The downfield passing game lit up in the 4th quarter, either completing or near-completing many downfield passes, leading the offense nearly to a great comeback in his first career start against a tough defense. Clemens went back to the bench as Pennington was healthy again, but people had seen the future, and with a 1-3 start, public pressure started to mount toward a change of quarterback to the future, who was certainly Clemens. See any parallels? Keep in mind, our bye week is in week 10, coincidentally after our 9th game. Even stranger, our 9th game is against Washington.
If we lose this week we will have to go 9-2 to get to 10 wins and the playoffs. We have games remaining v.s the Pats, Dallas, Cincinnati, Pitt, Ten Phil, Washington, Cleveland, Miami, Buffalo and Kc. Do you see 9 victories coming from the remaining games? If we lose this Sunday the season is over and it should be Clemens time!
I don't think there is any question that if we are 3-6 heading into the bye week, Kellen Clemens will be inserted into the starting lineup. Will we be 3-6 though? That means we would go 2-3 the nest 5 games...with games against the Giants, Eagles, Bengals, Bills and Redksins...I don't see us winning more than 3 games out of the next 5. Ugh.
I don't thin Mangini will be so quick to pull the trigger... I don't think he will put Clemens in until we are REALLY out of the playoff hunt...We essentially would be out after a 1-4 start, but I don't think he would switch the QB's up at that point.
To be Honest neither do I. I think the Oct 28th game would be the earliest we would get to see Clemens.
I think the bye week is when the switch will be made. Gives Clemens an extra week of preparation as the starter, 7 games is plenty of time to get ready for next season. And 2-3 against the Giants, Eagles, Bengals, Bills, and Redskins is very possible. None of those teams are great, but you can make the argument for any of those teams being better than us.
we narrowly beat one team that has yet to win and lost to another for their first win. that doesn't bode well for the ability of this team. many people think that starting Clemmens now would be giving up on the season. I think continuing on this happless path the team has been on the first four games just because it is less risky is actually giving up on the season. sure, that may be pessimistic, but in 4 or 5 week swe will know for sure. Chad supporters will always say all Chad has done is won. that doesn't look like it is going to happen this season, and dspite his accuracy, I am one of the believers that Chad is part of the problem, not a victim of it. what's worse, continuing to play Chad and watching this offense continue to sputter to a 2-6 and or 3-5 record, because that is clearly the path we are on, or putting in a new QB that may open up the offense and move the ball? we can't be any worse.
Here's the problem with not making the switch now: Clemens would have likely won the game in Buffalo that Chad could not. 32 of 39 means nothing if it does not turn into enough points to beat a bad defensive team that only scores 17 of its own. If Clemens had played like he did in the 4th quarter against the Ravens we'd have blown Buffalo out 35-17.
A tale of two cities. Clemens is an unknown commodity. Well, relatively unknown. And we have to know there are going to be plenty of ugly things going on should we insert Clemens. Chad is the known commodity. Accurate, cerebral and a leader in all ways. And he's consistent, a word Mangini has a penchant for using way too frequently. In fact, he says "consistent" in his press conferences so often that he's now taken to slurring the word. It comes out "consissent." But that's a whole other thing. My fear is, this "consissent" thing is the thing that's going to keep Pennington under center long enough to (a) screw up this season but good as we embarassingly go down in flames and (b) keep Clemens off the field and out of touch with the 1st team, depriving him of valuable experience he's going to need going into 2008. Do it. Do it now.
You guys seem to base alot of your thoughts on one quarter in Baltimore. Not saying Clemens wasn't great during that quarter, he was, but I need more proof than that to just say He would have crushed Buffalo.
He put that 4th quarter up against the Ravens after the Jets started hitting the seams 15 yards downfield and forcing the Ravens to back off the line of scrimmage. Do you know how much better the Ravens are, particularly in the secondary, than the Bills right now? Clemens would have torn them up.
To be fair, it's not completely uncommon to score in the 4th quarter after being held back all game. But that quarter went above and beyond that, considering the venue, the quality of defense, and the very last drive, where defenses often buckle down. If McCareins makes that catch, we win the toss in overtime, and score in overtime, is Clemens playing right now?
I don't know if Clemmens would have beaten Buffalo, but I do know that Chad "All he does is win" Pennington couldn't beat that happless team staring a back up QB. I am tickled pink Chad's completion percentage was so high, but how many scoring opportunities did that percentage lead to. not even counting the final drive, the Jets had only 3 scoring opportunities the entire game -- the missed FG and 2 TD's. that is completely pathetic and weighs far greater on how he actually performed than his NFL record percentage.
One of the Star-Ledger reporters reminded me in this morning's paper that it takes Chad about 10-11 plays to drive the ball to the opposite end of the field. Because of the dinking and dunking (and plays designed by Schottenheimer because of the deficiency), it takes forever to get the ball to the red zone. On any one of those 3rd and 4's, 3rd and 5's, etc., you run the risk of it being picked off in our territory. Conversely, when you throw the deep ball, at least if it gets picked, it's way down on their 25 and has the effect of a punt at it's worst. But we can't do that, so we use 10-11 plays to move the chains 80 yards. You'd have to be a simpleton to not be able to shut down those kinds of drives, given the multiple chances your Def has of making Chad go 3 and out.
That's exactly right. A sequence offense has it uses, keeping the opposing offense off the field, killing the clock, playing a field position game in a very tight contest between two solid defenses, etc. It is absolutely a terrible type of offense to use to drive down the field and score a TD when you have to. Here's why: 1. There are many ways a drive can end before it scores. Every play in that drive can cause it to end via turnover, penalty or just not making the yards you need. So the fewer the plays it takes to score the better your chances of not losing that score to the wear and tear of the game. 2. Potential scoring plays from outside the red zone tend to go against less compacted defenses, increasing the chances of scoring on the play. Sequence offenses tend to get into the red zone and then bog down. This is the Jet's offense of the last 5 years to a T. 3. Sequence offenses need more clock to pose a threat than offenses that use the entire field in their attack plan. Obviously if it take 3 plays to go 50 yards and get into position to score you are better off than it it takes 8. Generally speaking a sequence offense really only has value when the team running it has a good enough defense to make a couple of scores hold up, because a sequence offense is only going to get into position to score a few times a game and consequently will tend to depress its own scoring.
This reminds me of the days long ago when you were a bright, wide-eyed kid with a promising future, working his way through high school waiting tables so that he could build himself a future. Occasionally, that kid would spend a weekend here and there writing a Jets article for all of our enjoyment. Posts like this are a tease, and they turn me sullen, now that I've seen you devolve into some punk, lounging his way through some Pennsylvania trade school, trying to think up different names for the "grayness" of his bong water. I'm going to say this one last time - "whale's ink gray" makes no sense.
Damn! For once, you agree with me! Serously... well written, Br4dw4y5ux;654877, or whatever the hell your moniker is, and I certainly hope I got it straight. But really, come on now. How many more games do we have to play (this season or even next) in which this deficiency becomes so embarassingly apparent to all who are announcing the game that it becomes some sort of national, Saturday Night Live-type of joke? I can just hear Jay Leno now.... "That line was as funny as a Chad Pennington drive to the End Zone." I mean, come on! Seriously!
