Comments on: Daily Links: Steady Please http://www.thejetsblog.com/2008/10/25/daily-links-steady-please/ Ranting and Raving about the Gang Green Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:49:01 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Bent http://www.thejetsblog.com/2008/10/25/daily-links-steady-please/comment-page-1/#comment-106494 Bent Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:23:27 +0000 http://www.thejetsblog.com/?p=6918#comment-106494 My view last week was that blitzing more probably would have played into Russell's hands, but the more sensible ideal of confusing him into mistakes by mixing up coverages didn't work either, perhaps because the lack of a pass rush made it too easy for him. Remember Pace was banged up and he was ineffective (perhaps as a result). My sense is that the Jets kind of assumed they would get the lead, which would have forced the Raiders to take more chances and increased the chances of Russell making some mistakes. It is a worry that having not maintained that lead, they couldn't come up with an alternative plan. At the end of the day, the difference was the turnovers (3-0, on a brainfart, a slip and a miscommunication). Otherwise, it would probably have been a comfortable win for the Jets. Perhaps more concerning is the fact that again the Jets came out flat in the third and this was when the Raiders drove for their only TD. Good post, md. My view last week was that blitzing more probably would have played into Russell’s hands, but the more sensible ideal of confusing him into mistakes by mixing up coverages didn’t work either, perhaps because the lack of a pass rush made it too easy for him. Remember Pace was banged up and he was ineffective (perhaps as a result).

My sense is that the Jets kind of assumed they would get the lead, which would have forced the Raiders to take more chances and increased the chances of Russell making some mistakes. It is a worry that having not maintained that lead, they couldn’t come up with an alternative plan. At the end of the day, the difference was the turnovers (3-0, on a brainfart, a slip and a miscommunication). Otherwise, it would probably have been a comfortable win for the Jets.

Perhaps more concerning is the fact that again the Jets came out flat in the third and this was when the Raiders drove for their only TD.

Good post, md.

]]> By: md http://www.thejetsblog.com/2008/10/25/daily-links-steady-please/comment-page-1/#comment-106489 md Sat, 25 Oct 2008 21:52:00 +0000 http://www.thejetsblog.com/?p=6918#comment-106489 Many people, including Mangini, talk about "evening out" or "balancing" the ratio of run to pass plays. While acknowledging the obvious need to game plan, a rigid adherence to achieving that end handicaps the offense. An unlikely analogy, but a great actor once said in regards to preparing for performance, "plan, but don't plan too much." (Robert Duvall, for those who care.) A plan is great, but reacting and responding to what is happening is also critical. It is essential to creativity, including the elusive "creative offense" that we all hope for. Last week's opening drive, pre-determined and inflexible plan to go empty backfield, no huddle is a good example. It was a fine idea, but Schott didn't respond to the fact that Favre was not getting time. Seeing the Raiders coming, he never adjusted and called a play that might make them think twice. He could have gone back to the spread later, but to make it work, he first needed to counter (move, punch) what the Raiders were doing. He had initially intended to put the Raiders on there heels with the spread. Instead, the Raiders were on their toes and Favre was on his heels, and then his back. Teams have won 60/40, pass or run, as often as 50/50. I still believe in Mangini, but that same stubborn dynamic has also hampered the defense. They needed to get a pass rush going. Many have said the same. Maybe blitzing more was not the answer (Bent?), but we needed to try something. I, for one, did not see the necessary adjustments. I hope it's only indicative of Mangini's youth, and not his talent. I believe it is. But in this business, one needs to grow up quick. Many people, including Mangini, talk about “evening out” or “balancing” the ratio of run to pass plays. While acknowledging the obvious need to game plan, a rigid adherence to achieving that end handicaps the offense. An unlikely analogy, but a great actor once said in regards to preparing for performance, “plan, but don’t plan too much.” (Robert Duvall, for those who care.)
A plan is great, but reacting and responding to what is happening is also critical. It is essential to creativity, including the elusive “creative offense” that we all hope for. Last week’s opening drive, pre-determined and inflexible plan to go empty backfield, no huddle is a good example. It was a fine idea, but Schott didn’t respond to the fact that Favre was not getting time. Seeing the Raiders coming, he never adjusted and called a play that might make them think twice. He could have gone back to the spread later, but to make it work, he first needed to counter (move, punch) what the Raiders were doing. He had initially intended to put the Raiders on there heels with the spread. Instead, the Raiders were on their toes and Favre was on his heels, and then his back. Teams have won 60/40, pass or run, as often as 50/50.
I still believe in Mangini, but that same stubborn dynamic has also hampered the defense. They needed to get a pass rush going. Many have said the same. Maybe blitzing more was not the answer (Bent?), but we needed to try something. I, for one, did not see the necessary adjustments.
I hope it’s only indicative of Mangini’s youth, and not his talent. I believe it is. But in this business, one needs to grow up quick.

]]>