Postseason BGA Extra: Jets at Steelers
Disclaimer: All analysis was taken from the TV coverage, so at times it may have been hard to identify players or what was happening, because I was limited by their footage. However, I have tried to be as accurate as possible and apologize for any inaccuracies or omissions (which I am happy to correct).
It’s time to take a final look back at the AFC Title Game against the Steelers. After the jump, I respond to your questions from the comments in the original BGA post, which you can access here if you missed it.
I would like to know about the penalties that weren’t called on Pittsburgh. – Klecko71
Let’s run down some of the more controversial calls:
- James Harrison late hit on Sanchez. No question…that should have been a fifteen yarder.
- James Farrior helmet-to-helmet on Greene. Not a penalty, because Greene is not a “defenseless receiver”…they got that right.
- Eric Smith late hit. Yes, he did slow up, but he still lowered the shoulder and made contact at around the head and neck area. No question…that was a penalty and they got the call right.
- Two coverage penalties on Cromartie. Both appeared to be correct.
- Two coverage penalties on the Steelers. Again, both appeared to be correct.
- Keller’s drop in the endzone – did Clark make contact before the ball? Barely, so they probably were correct not to flag that one.
- False starts – Braylon did flinch, but as the ball was snapped. Ferguson didn’t move a muscle. Both were wrong IMO.
- Holding. Pittsburgh weren’t called for a single hold in this game. I noticed one on Harris (8 yard gain), one on Tevaseu (11 yard gain), one on Scott (7 yard gain), one on DeVito (4 yard scramble), and one on Coleman (5 yard scramble on 3rd and 5) that I thought should have been called. Pittsburgh’s linemen combined for 49 penalties in 18 cames this season, so they average about three per game.
On the whole, I do think the Jets got the rough end of the officiating, but I guess that’s because Pittsburgh earned the homefield advantage and the Jets didn’t.
What about the bad spotting of the ball…3rd play of the game and from what i remember it was a 3rd an 6 and it looked like we stopped them by at least 2 feet…bad calls…bad ball placement…that whole 1st half worked against us from the word GO. – dakar
Yes, and the spotting of the ball. The Jets seemed to lose half a yard each time and the Steeler gained half a yard (at least), just like in the last meeting. Again, that falls under the same category as the penalties.
So I hate to ask but… who was it and how many times did they each miss the tackles? – juunit
Okay, I have three answers for you…pick your favorite:
First of all, this comes from Rich Cimini (hat tip: WOJF) – Here’s an unofficial breakdown of the players that missed tackles and the amount of extra yards that resulted:
LB Bart Scott — 4 for 22 yards (including Mendenhall’s 1-yard TD run)
NT Sione Pouha — 3 for 20 yards
LB David Harris — 1 for 33 yards
S Brodney Pool — 1 for 17 yards (on a pass play)
DT Trevor Pryce — 1 for 6 yards.
S Eric Smith — 1 for 7 yards
Totals: 11 for 105 yards
This was PFF’s breakdown:
Pouha 2, Ellis, Pace, Harris, Scott, Pool, Smith, Scott. Total: 9.
And now for the correct my breakdown:
Pryce 2 (16 yards)
Pouha 2 (13 yards)
Pace 1 (2 yards)
Mauga 1 (1 yard, TD)
Pool 1 (17 yards)
Ellis 1 (2 yards)
Scott 2 (3 yards)
Harris 1 (33 yards)
Smith 1 (2 yards)
Revis 1 (2 yards)
Coleman 1 (in pocket – pass intercepted)
Total – 14 (81 yards)
Notes:
- I define a missed tackle as any tackle where the tackler has the defender lined up and a shot at making the tackle, but either has hold of him and the tackle is broken, or they miss completely.
- Those 14 missed tackles came on 11 plays, because there was one play when three different guys missed a tackle and one where two did. I divided up the yards gained on the play between the players based on where they missed their tackle.
- The biggest difference between my/PFF’s numbers and those of Cimini, who seems to have overlooked the less obvious ones was in his review was the fact that he credited Bart Scott with four. He also said this about Scott:
Bart (Can’t Wait) Scott played one of his worst games as a Jet. Not only did he miss four tackles, but he took a false step on Ben Roethlisberger’s next-to-last completion — the 14-yarder to Heath Miller. Scott came free on a blitz, but bit inside on the play fake, allowing Roethlisberger to break outside to his right. It bought Big Ben an extra second to complete the throw.
Clearly that contradicts what I wrote in BGA and also PFF’s analysis, where they rated him at +2.6, including +2.7 against the run, both of which were 2nd best on the team and a better overall grade than every Pittsburgh linebacker apart from Lamar Woodley. It certainly wasn’t his best game as a Jet, but it was far from his worst – grading out as his 7th best game of the season. It seems Cimini’s analysis doesn’t account for all the positive plays that he made, many of which you can’t appreciate without looking in detail at every snap.
In terms of the four missed tackles that Cimini counted, let’s address those plays:
- Scott beat his man on the outside, forcing the runner back to the inside. He did get a hand on him, so I assume Cimini has counted this as a missed tackle. However, it seems like he carried out his assignment there. The play would have gone for no gain, but Trevor Pryce missed a tackle at the line, which Cimini seems to have missed. So, if Scott does get a missed tackle there – and if we were counting based on such harsh criteria, there would have been way more than 11 – Pryce should get one too and be credited with the eight yards.
- Scott shed a block and almost made a tackle in the backfield, but the runner escaped. However, he didn’t make any additional yardage (which is why PFF apparently didn’t count this one) and lost two overall. Again, it seems harsh to count this as a negative play against Bart, because he – along with Shaun Ellis – blew up the play.
- On Mendenhall’s touchdown, Scott met the runner on the edge and he was able to break the plane with his second effort. Cimini counts this as a missed tackle, but Scott never let go of him. This was really just yards after contact and again there would be way more missed tackles in total if we counted one every time a runner moved the pile an extra yard. Cimini is also missing the fact that Josh Mauga had him wrapped up and Mendenhall actually did break that tackle as he drove for the line. Scott held the runner up long enough that a defensive back should have been able to assist him, but both Brodney Pool and James Ihedigbo allowed themselves to get driven back by blockers and got there a split-second too late.
- The last one went for a 7 yard gain, as both Ellis and Scott missed tackles on the play. This was the one where Doug Legursky blatantly held him. I don’t know if many linebackers could have secured that tackle while being dragged back by the waist with a handful of jersey.
I assume they were the four plays he counted as missed tackles, unless he found a phantom one, but I stand by my assertion that Scott was solid on closer inspection – even in the first half – and that any mistakes he did make were nothing like as costly as those made by some of his teammates.
Is it me or do you think Calvin Pace has been underwhelming the last two seasons? Maybe I’m being too harsh but it seems to me that he has not been the impact player we were hoping for. - BobP
Pace was kind of inconsistent this year and nowhere near as productive as a pass rusher, even though his sack numbers were similar. He had six pressures all year – and 35 last year! However, much of that was down to the fact that he was often used as a DE in just a three or even two man rush, as the Jets employed more guys in coverage this year.
He grades out pretty good against the run, but had a poor finish to the year in that area and had particularly rough games against Cleveland and this week. Last year, he made a really slow start after missing the first four games and this year, although he started faster, I wonder if the foot injury continued to plague him through the year, because I noticed him looking tired and not playing to the whistle and foot/toe injuries can drain your energy, even if they don’t slow you down.
Due to his contract situation, I think the Jets will retain him for one more year and hope that his production improves if he gets through camp healthy and if they line another good pass rusher up across from him. Overall, he has been a slight disappointment, but not a complete bust.
I am wondering where the Devito to NG talk is coming from. He is developing into a solid DE why are people talking about NG. I cant remember seeing him line up at NG very often this year. I can remember Ellis, Gholston, Pryce, Tevaseu and of course Pouha at NG at various points – but not Devito. Am I missing something? - Brian311
After the first game of the season, I had spoken to an analyst from PFF that happens to be a Ravens fan and was familiar with how Rex develops his schemes. He predicted that the Jets might eventually look to use DeVito as a nose tackle, because he felt DeVito’s skillset and build were similar to that of Kelly Gregg.
Sure enough, the Jets tried him out as a more or less full-time nose tackle in the final game of the regular season against the Bills and he had a great game. They then continued to use him in that role at times throughout the postseason (usually with Trevor Pryce and/or Shaun Ellis rushing from the DE position, but Kris Jenkins or Ropati Pitoitua would look good in the same role). The results were again encouraging, so I do expect to see more of that this season.
They didn’t do it as much on Sunday, but there was a heavier front being employed, with both Pouha and DeVito playing over 75% of the snaps.
The 3 LT runs netting 4 yards and costing 1:23 during the Jets last drive will drive me nuts until Schotty is fired. There was no reason to run, the Jets had to hurry up and, after the first no gain, why keep going to the well? Presumably, Schotty didn’t run 4 times at the goal line because of the Steelers stout run defense, so why test it when you’re trying to conserve time and time outs? I can throw out all the other mistakes because Keller and Sanchez should’ve had a TD on the goal line…that’s lack of execution. Running LT 3 times up the middle against the NFL’s best run defense in the hurry up? That’s just idiotic play-calling. Did anyone really expect LT to pop a quick hitter for 10 yards? – Sackdance99
Actually, I believe they were trying to score a touchdown or at least get big chunks of yardage on these plays – well, two of them at least – because they ran the “Blast” play, which historically has been the one which can break the runner out into the second level. It failed both times because there was no surge from the right side of the line. The other run failed because Robert Turner got owned by Casey Hampton and Tomlinson tripped over him. I do agree that they perhaps shouldn’t have gone back to this play after the lack of success the first time.
You wrote “…the Steelers had loaded guys into the middle and Dustin Keller got open easily. The pass was a little off target and Keller couldn’t make a fingertip grab with a defender draped all over him.” This seems to imply that Sanchez was late finding Keller, because if he got open easily, there shouldn’t have been a defender draped all over him. Or did the defender make a great play? – The NYC Parking Expert
Well, he was open, but with the defender on his back. Yes, the timing was slightly off and the pass was thrown about six inches too far ahead of the receiver, but that was a makeable throw.
You wrote: “The gameplanning and play calling has not been the problem this year and the Jets simply haven’t executed well enough this year to be the elite offense many Jets fans seem to expect them to be.” … That seems to be a true statement but I wonder if Shotty does not have a lot to do with their execution problems. If the execution is consistently off (which it was for games at a time), this implies to me that something about either the preparation, gameplan or timing/order of the plays called is causing them to lose focus. – The NYC Parking Expert
I don’t know about that. Whenever the execution lets them down, it’s a play that would have worked if the execution was better, so the play call was good. It’s hard to establish rhythm when you call a good play but it fails anyway and lands you in obvious passing situations. Schottenheimer does have something to do with the execution problems, because it’s part of his job to get his team ready to execute, but the position coaches and the head coach are also a part of that too and it’s not possible for me to apportion that blame accurately from watching the film.
You wrote “Credit Edwards with an excellent block on the WR screen to Cotchery. He has the ability to do that more often, but has been inconsistent as a blocker all year.” Funny that Rex said a week or so ago that he thought Braylon was one of the best blocking WRs in the game, up there (but close behind) Hines Ward. Maybe he was trying to motivate Edwards? – The NYC Parking Expert
As I wrote a few weeks ago, Edwards is capable of being a good blocker and has all the tools, including great size. However, he grades out (per PFF) as one of the worst blockers in the league (90th out of 110, last time I looked). Although he is a good downfield blocker – which I view as a routine play – when called upon to make key in-line blocks or from the slot, he has a poor record when you compare bad blocks and good blocks. Of course, he also had a ton of penalties. The fact the Jets do give him those kinds of blocking assignments speaks to his ability, but on a play by play basis, he’s not graded out well as a blocker this year. He is certainly capable of doing so, though, as the afore-mentioned play shows.
You wrote “This looks to be a disappointing end to the Mike Westhoff era.” Has he said he’s done? I heard them say on the radio that they thought he had another year on his contract. – The NYC Parking Expert
I gather he has alluded to the fact that he might stick around for another year. However, he has previously stated that he’s gone if Brad Smith is and also the looming sceptre of the lockout has to be considered. I’d welcome him back, but it was a disappointing end to the year.
Did you notice on the Roethlisberger run for a score who screwed up? I did not want to re-watch but it looks as if two linebackers or a LB and safety ran into one another and Im assuming one was the Ben spy. - Jason
I answered this in BGA:
Scott would have been keying Roethlisberger, but Darrelle Revis’ man went in motion and as he followed him across the field, the pair collided and fell to the floor. This left Bryan Thomas in an impossible two-on-one situation.
On the 3rd down failed slant play, does Brandon Moore react / grab sanchez arm or facemask after the play? As if to say “what was that?” … A friend of mine’s brother knows someone in the jets video department….said that the 3rd down slant was supposed to be a fake throw and delayed handoff…which would EXPLAIN why turner was in the passing stance…b/c he was supposed to sell pass… – Klecko71
Moore appeared to say something to Sanchez after the play, but there’s no way of knowing what he was saying. If he did fake the throw then he could have scored easily, similar to the QB draw play against the Browns, but Tomlinson’s actions on the play didn’t suggest he was expecting a handoff.
One minor point…I thought that Turner ran onto the field with the defense on a goal line play, but was subbed for before the play went off. I don’t recall seeing this previously. Did he play any defensive snaps this year? – Spindoctor
Yes, he’s been on the goalline defense all year. Wayne Hunter was too, until Woody got hurt and he became indispensable.
On the failed 4th down run, was hoping you could clarify something … One report (the tipping the play report) indicated LT was lined up 7 yards deep, resulting in an initial huge hole to close before he could get there. It insinuated he would have scored if he lined up at the usual 5 yard deep spot … Cimini claimed this is the “blast” play that the Jets love to use on the goal line, except usually with Greene, I think … Does Greene or LT usually run this play? … If indeed it is the same play does the runner usually line up that deep? … I suspect that LT usually does not run this play, and screwed up by lining up too deep. – WOJF
I’m not sure it was a “Blast” play. Matt Slauson would usually pull to the right side, but on this play he just pulled behind Mangold and tried to get a surge up the middle. Also, the runner wouldn’t typically plow over the right side, and instead would look to cut back. However, it was a tight formation, so perhaps they executed it slightly different. Anyway, let’s say it was a “Blast” play for the purposes of answering your questions. I’d say – based on gut feel – that Tomlinson ran that play more than Greene over the course of the season. Also, the runner does line up that far back, because you need to wait for the blocks to develop and you need to give the Fullback room to hit his block. As for the “huge” hole, it was filled by two linebackers, who simply timed their explosion into the hole to arrive just before Tomlinson did. If Tomlinson lines up closer, that wouldn’t have prevented them from still timing their hits in the same manner and would have also given Tomlinson less room to select his lane.
Your explanation for the LT overreliance makes sense, but at the time I thought Greene got dinged during the game (first half) and LT therefore got more reps. Can’t remember the play, but remember Greene walking very gingerly to the sidelines. – WOJF
I did mention that Greene hurt himself on the 23 yard run as he was knocked out of bounds on the first drive of the second half. I didn’t see if he was hurt earlier on, but if he was, that may well have been a factor.
Didn’t see any mention of Sanchez wiping a booger on Brunell’s coat. What was that all about? – TB
Perfect timing, good placement, almost hit him right between the numbers. The kid’s come a long way.
That’s it for this week. Thanks again for your questions and comments and I’ll be back next week to wrap up the season.
70 Responses to Postseason BGA Extra: Jets at Steelers
-
-
Trouble with Cimini is that he could be a perfectly competent Jets beat writer if he wanted to – some of his stuff is good – but he’s just such a douche that Jets fans can’t appreciate any journalistic ability that he actually has.
He’s not an idiot, he’s just a negative…well, douche.
-
Bent says:
I think Cimini’s writing and coverage is excellent, just don’t always agree with his angle.
To underline your point, he only credited Braylon with one drop this year. PFF has him with four. That’s why the NFL will never recognize those stats officially and I try to be as consistent as possible in my methods.
I’m not suggesting he did it here, but it wouldn’t be too difficult to massage the numbers if you had an agenda, wanting to make a certain player look bad or better than they are.
-
But he thought Bart Scott missed the tackle on Mendenhall at the goal line. That doesn’t seem very excellent to me. The RB has momentum too, it’s like Cimini was expecting Scott to tackle him for a loss and anything else was going to be a bad play on Scott’s part. Football is a team sport after all. Scott made a good play but Cimini sold it as if the TD was his fault.
-
As you say, he seems to have some sort of agenda here. Apparently Bart Scott slept with his girlfriend back in college or something.
-
Bent says:
I didn’t say that – you did!
-
I understand his point on the “missed tackle” by the endzone. Scott did have him wrapped up, but really needed someone to close the deal. At the same time, Mendenhall only needed to get one yard, and Scott’s job was to stop, he was there.
While not really a “Missed Tackle” it was certainly a missed opportunity, because while it was a good play for Bart Scott to get over there, in the end, was negated by he wasn’t able to stop him
-
-
-
-
“Whenever the execution lets them down, it’s a play that would have worked if the execution was better, so the play call was good. It’s hard to establish rhythm when you call a good play but it fails anyway and lands you in obvious passing situations.”
Well, I still assert that if shotty is calling things that seem out of place, that could make it hard for the players to focus. Similarly, if players aren’t liking the calls and/or the way they are being used (easy example is holmes last week, although I didn’t see glaring execution problems on his part), they may again lose focus. I’m not saying this is reason for him to be fired, but it’s like which came first, the chicken or the egg – are the players sometimes not executing because of shotty’s sometimes herky-jerky, sometimes not-so-logical playcalling or does he have trouble establishing a rhythm because they aren’t consistently executing. After a few years of this I am leaning towards the former. In addition, you’ve (bent) mentioned before that they run a pretty complicated offense. Perhaps at times too much for the players to digest? When they simplify, that seems to take the form of still having complicated play calls, but maybe less of them to commit to memory. Whatever the reason, there is a smoothness that is usually missing from the offense – certainly they’ve had very few games where the O looks good all game – that I hope they can correct if they want to be an elite O. I see it as the OC’s job to find a way to make that correction.
-
“Well, I still assert that if shotty is calling things that seem out of place, that could make it hard for the players to focus.”
Come on, NYCPE. I don’t think calling a play puts the offense in a tizzy and disorients them or something.
And if players aren’t focused and putting forth a full effort because they’re not getting play calls they want, then they shouldn’t be on this team.
-
Although you’re completely reading into what I wrote by talking about “players getting in tizzys” (not what I said at all) players react to things for all sorts of reasons, check out holmes after the last game. But I’m not suggesting that it’s any one playcall that would make a player lose focus, just that the overall ebb and flow of a gameplan, too many complicated plays and running one type of plays in situations that usually call for another (throwing when 3 running plays would likely score a TD) could certainly affect a lot of things, including a player’s focus.
-
I guess i misread what you wrote. I took it as you saying players hear/see a play called and essentially don’t go 100% because they’re pissed.
I would agree that an overall gameplan could affect certain players, but they also have a full week to get acclimated to the gameplan, so I don’t know how much I buy into the theory that play calling can cause players to become disinterested/lose focus.
-
That’s cool. My theory is more about everything together (gameplan, prep, playcalls, adjustments) than just playcalling and I don’t mean to lay it all at shott’s feet, either. But i think he should at least take it into account as he learns and grows as a coach.
-
I completely agree with that. Schotty has shown an improved “feel”, but still needs to improve. I think part of their questionable calls have to do with Sanchez (like when he’s playing awful and they bring in B. Smith for a wildcat play).
-
What I hate is the opposite, when Sanchez makes a big play and they yank him off the field for the wildcat. They tend to insert Brad Smith when they pass the opponents 40 yd line, which by defintion is when the starting qb has a drive, and some rhythm going.
I also think Schotty is slow to get the play in sometimes, and some of that probably has to do with the young QB, which has to also effect rhythm.
-
-
-
-
And just to be clear, when I write “affect a player’s focus”, I don’t mean getting in a tizzy, being disoriented, going home and crying to mama, etc. I simply mean that in a game where inches often means the difference between winning and losing, any distraction, any feeling of discontinuity, any confusion (however small), any sense of discomfort at all could make a difference. That doesn’t mean shotty should be fired (I’ve already stated that he should stay as much for continuity as anything else) or that it’s all his fault, the players certainly bear their share. But it’s his job (and his assistants) to coach, gameplan, playcall and adjust in-game his players into proper focus. Whatever the reason, however you want to divvy up the blame, it wasn’t happening that way with regularity this season.
-
-
The players do have their own opinions though. I’m sure they don’t all agree with the playcalling 100% of the time. I know if I was on the field that I would be questioning plenty of Schottenheimer’s calls. But then I’d probably bring it up with him during a practice and try to at least understand his thinking on those plays.
-
And he would probably show that he knows way more about offense than the players and they’d stop criticizing him in meetings.
I actually know this happens in college, so I assume it’s why NFL players don’t voice their criticisms unless their coach is REALLY bad.
My friend went to college, a WR, played 1-AA and one team meeting called out his coach’s calls on a 2nd quarter drive as the half ended. He thought they should do X instead of Y, and then the coach let him call a full drive in practice against their defense. Let’s just say the coach proved his point.
-
-
I just think, fans included, that people that don’t do the job think it’s easier than it is. That’s in general, not you or me in particular. While we criticize and say “RUNRUNRUN” there are thousands of things that weigh into each play call, most of which we’ll never know about.
-
Definitely true, but I think it might effect some of the player’s effort on plays if they disagree with the call very strongly. It shouldn’t. A good player should give 100% every time. But the reality is that they do not.
-
Oh, I agree. Certain players see football as a job. For others it’s a passion. You can tell the guys who view it as a job because they’re ME!-guys and do exactly what you just said.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bent says:
In Schotty’s defense, he did simplify things towards the end of the year and we did see an overall improvement over the last six weeks. It’s not like 2008 when the offense got worse at the end of the year and was trending downwards. Then, it would’ve made more sense to dump him (and I was bashing him plenty, although I also felt Favre and Mangini were big factors.)
Anyway, once we move into the realm of focus and rhythm, it becomes a question that I can’t answer accurately, no matter how much film I watch, so to avoid going over old ground, I’ll just say you make some good points and let’s hope Schottenheimer does a good job next year and that they can continue to improve and play more consistently like they did in the last six games.
-
-
Similar to the booger thing, when Ben took the final knee in the victory formation and Mendenhall started humping Ben, I burst out laughing even though I was distraught about the results of the game.
Did anyone else notice Mendenhall humping Roethlisberger on the final knee of the game? It was actually really funny.
-
Bent
When you get a chance can you give your opinions on the “Poll: Should the Jets Re-Sign These Guys?”, since you have graded all these players from doing your BGA, and have some idea of the salaries these players will be asking. TIA
-
Bent says:
I’ll be covering that in depth next week, but really as a general rule, your guess is as good as mine. Last year, I thought they’d keep everyone and was wrong. This year, I think they’ll let a few key guys go (as for who, this changes almost daily), so maybe I’ll be wrong again and they’ll retain as many people as they can.
The 17 free agents is a big number, but the Jets turned over 21 players from AFC Title Game to AFC Title Game, so if some of them return, they might actually have more continuity next year.
-
Hey Bent -
Thanks again for all of your analysis and insight throughout the season – it really helps put everything in better perspective.
When you write about “who should the Jets resign/let go this off-season”, could you include your thoughts on the important dimensions of:
- production value (expected resigning cost vs. expected performance)
- salary cap relief/dead money cap hit (and could you explain those again?)
- the depth of the free agent pool (as of now) in the key positions of the Jet free agents – like WRs, CBs.
- replacement level player comparison to understand a player’s worth versus the average at his position.
In the end, this year’s turnover will be different from last year as many key personnel decisions were made to improve the team (Holmes, LT, Cro – all carried risks that were somewhat discounted to market value). This year – we are likely to lose more high worth talent.
Bent – again we all really appreciate what you do. Your perspectives are so strong and it will be great to see how you’d assemble the roster like a GM.
-
-
-
I’ve not been a big fan of Schotty mainly because of the chronically slow starts to games and his tendency to get too cute and ruin the rhythm with ill timed reverses, etc. However, if you look at the arc of the last two years, I think some appreciation is in order. Almost everything on offense has been about developing Sanchez. I think a lot of the mid season struggles may have been a result of purposefully pushing the envelope of Sanchez’s understanding (either in reading defenses and/or creating and allowing for adjustments in plays). I think they have probably done a lot of experimenting to find out where Sanchez’s development is at various times. By the end of the year they then simplify and refine based on what the know the kid can do. It seems to have happened both years now and I don’t think it’s a fluke.
-
Bent,
You say that the officials got it right in not calling unnecessary roughness on Farrior for his helmet-to-helmet hit on Shawn Greene because he was not a “defenseless receiver.”
However, you are confusing what is the relevant rule. Here it is:
Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8 (Unnecessary roughness) in the NFL rulebook, subdivision f(f) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures, including but not limited to:
(The rule then goes on to describe various scenarios pertaining to defenseless players).
The rule then continues:
Note: The provisions of section (f) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or noncrown parts of the helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on an opponent.Penalty: For unnecessary roughness: Loss of 15 yards. The player may be disqualified if the action is judged by the official(s) to be flagrant.
Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the covering official(s) should always call unnecessary roughness.
Bent–so the Farrior helmet-to-helmet was illegal–it is “impermissible against any opponent” and was not incidental–and a penalty should have been called.
-
If the rule was called to the letter, a flag would be thrown on every play. Guys use their heads all the time.
-
That was not a run of the mill play with incidental helmet-to-helmet contact. It was a strong runner knocked down in the open field by a defender who led with his helmet. The impact knocked paint off of Greene’s helmet. Penalty!
-
Well that’s exactly why all the helmet to helmet penalties and fines are so ridiculous. It’s a contact sport, it happens. Why should it be any different if the guy is defenseless or not? Helmet to helmet contact can cause severe injury whether the guy saw it coming or not. It should either be in all cases or none of them that the flag is thrown.
-
Bent says:
It’s the rule that is dumb, but it was probably enforced correctly.
The worst part of the rule is that contorting oneself to avoid helmet contact as you tackle is more likely to injure you than a form tackle, so any incidental helmet contact should really be permissable.
-
There are lots of rules that should be changed, like the roughing the kicker rule. I also think forward progress is a horrible rule as well. The ball should be spotted where it was when the ball carrier went down, not where the officials think it should be placed. This would add the element of a smart player knowing when to go to the ground so he isn’t pushed backwards 5 yards. Not that it’ll ever happen.
-
-
-
-
Bent says:
I’m still not sure. I felt Farrior kept his head up and didn’t lead with the helmet, which would mean the contact was incidental and therefore probably only a penalty if the receiver is defenseless. Eric Smith went unpunished for a similar hit on Welker last week.
However, you make a good case. This one wasn’t cut and dried.
-
-
BENT….can you look at the 3rd down slant again to see if there was any reaction by an OL as if to say “what was that”???
a friend i work with, his bro knows someone in the jets video dept…and word is the 3rd down play was supp to be a fake pass / handoff…or a draw play.
he says he saw brandon moore grab sanchez’ arm or facemask after the 3rd down play as if he wasnt supposed to throw it there…
thanks!
-
Bent says:
All I saw was what I described above.
Nobody grabbed Sanchez or was demonstrative, but Moore did say (possibly yell) something in his face after the play, but you didn’t really get much of a look at what happened on TV.
Maybe some of the players were expecting a run, but I don’t think so…it looked like all pass blocking to me and LT didn’t look like he expected a handoff.
-
thanks!!
turner? still messed up that play not blocking the DE who batted the ball down
-
Bent says:
Hunter, not Turner.
-
ahhh thanks. unfortunately the clearest memory i have of that play is HUNTER not even touching woodley who of course batted down the pass….
when you run that slant you have to AT LEAST engage the blocker in front of you.
yes its possible hunter expected him to drive upfield / rush the passer… but he didnt… which makes you think they knew it was coming
-
-
-
-
-
Helmet to helmet is still a penalty no matter the position. It’s illegal and dangerous. Happened right in front of an official. Should’ve been called.
-
Glad u pointed out the lack of holding penalties against the steelers. There were so many it seemed absurd to me. One in particular on the center, he wasnt even facing the right direction and just reached back and completely grabbed hold of a blitzing LB who I think was Harris. Absolutely ridiculous to think that 3 backups for Pittsburgh on the O-line for Pitt didn’t receive a single holding call all game with Roethlisberger scrambling around forever. Should’ve been a huge weakness in this game and they got away with murder.
-
Typical biased homer outlook on the game. What I don’t get is the attitude from some Jets fans that beating the Steelers “should’ve been easy”? This is based on… what?
The Steelers took the Jets over their knees the first half and spanked them. There were no flukes, no tipped passes, no goofs. It was shove it down your throat football. The Steelers dominated like you haven’t seen the Jets get dominated in quite a while.
In the second half, the Steelers eased up, as many teams do with the big lead. To the Jets credit they played better. But basing some idea that this was the “true” Jets here — versus a prevent defense looking to eat clock more than stop points– is ridiculous.
It came down to one final possession — the Jets vaunted defense versus Ben. Here was your chance to stop him, and he owned you there. Twice you had him on third down, and twice he smacked your defense down. Game on the line, Ben and the Steelers win. It’s as simple as that.
The Jets were lucky to win the first game with Polamalu and ESPECIALLY Heath Miller out. This time both played, and the outcome was different. Acting like you still have the “better” team is a joke, and frankly the sign of fanaticism, not analysis.
The Steelers won because they are the better team.
-
Bent says:
Why so defensive? This is a Jets blog, so the game has been analyzed in detail from their perspective. If you bothered to read it (and the original BGA article), you’d see that the Steelers were given plenty of credit.
The line “this should have been an easy win” was a throwaway line in the introductory paragraph to the strategy section reflecting an emotional response to the Jets’ improved defensive play in the second half and the fact they didn’t play like that from the start.
No disrespecting of the Steelers was intended, so whoever sent a parade of you guys over here should just relax. You won fair and square, the Jets stank in the first half and it was ultimately frustrating for Jets fans because they almost got back into it. Would it have been a fluke win? Of course, but that doesn’t make it any easier to stomach for a fanbase that hasn’t been that close in decades.
I put countless hours into these articles for the benefit of Jets fans and to have a bunch of Steeler fans disregard my analysis and bash my objectivity just because I didn’t spend thousands of words on how wonderful they are is insulting.
-
Don’t see how it was a “prevent” defense in the 2nd half for Pitt. They were still sending blitzes at Sanchez throughout the 2nd half. I’d say what changed was the jets offensive strategy, throwing the ball downfield more, actually attacking the steelers weakpoint (their CBs), and Sanchez not playing like dog turd.
-
-
Here we go again with the bias — Wallace had burned Revis by a good two steps on the play. The Jets got a fortunate underthrow by Ben that forced Wallace to stop, and gave Revis a rather undeserved shot at an interception. Unless you think getting totally torched entitles you to a handout like that.
Go watch the replay, Wallace torches Revis on that play. It should’ve been an easy long TD that would’ve put the exclamation point on the game. Again, the Jets got a break here.
-
Bent says:
Where was that even mentioned?
The guy with that as his name is BASHING Revis for not coming up with the ball.
Personally, I thought he played the ball the whole way and was never in danger of getting burned, but I’m just a homer, obviously.
-
You need to go back and watch the replay.
Wallace is running ahead of Revis by a good two yards. If that’s not being burned, the concept doesn’t exist.
The ball is underthrown — saving Revis the embarrassment of being torched like an old wooden barn.
-
If you didn’t see Revis getting burned a FULL two steps on that play, I’m afraid you were watching the game with green glasses.
But again I invite you to go back and watch the play again.
Then, if you still can’t admit what happened, you have reached SUPER HOMER status — and you run a fan blog, nothing to be taken seriously.
-
Bent says:
Okay, just rewatched it. What I saw was Revis started looking back for the ball at the 38 yard line. Then he started playing the ball rather than tracking Wallace, who didn’t overtake him until they both reached the 25 yard line. Revis deflected the pass, which bounced on the 15 yard line. At that point, Wallace was two steps beyond Revis, but only because Revis slowed down to make a play on the ball. Had Ben thrown it ten yards further, could Wallace have beaten Revis? Sure, maybe…but maybe not, because if he kept running with him, it’s likely he would have stayed on his shoulder (based on the last three years, where that always happens). Admittedly I’m basing my assumption that he would have stayed with him on what has happened in that situation every time over the last few years and I’m sure you’re doing the same from Wallace’s perspective.
Wallace is a great deep threat and if anyone can beat Revis deep, it’s him. On that particular play, I just gave my honest assessment, but I don’t think it’s fair to classify me as a clueless homer when I’ve written about Casey Hampton dominating Mangold, or linebackers getting owned by blocks, or Emmanuel Sanders being uncoverable in week 15, or how superbly the Steeler O-line played in week 15 (seriously, read it).
-
-
-
Doesn’t matter that Wallace got by Revis, Big Ben threw up a stinker of a long ball that was way under thrown, and Revis had both hands on the ball and dropped it. It was a big moment early in the game on a drive the Steelers ended up scoring on.
Btw big Ben shoulda had at least 5 passes intercepted that game. Aside from running around outside the pocket while his linemen held onto ours for their dear lives, he had an awful game. Hats off to him for sealing the game at the end, but a 35 passer rating with two INTs isn’t doing much.-
Bent says:
I actually thought Ben had a much better game than his stats indicated. He ran for at least three first downs and a TD, plus made clutch throws on the final drive. A lot of QBs have had bad numbers against the Jets this year, but the good ones have been able to make big plays on third down.
-
He did enough to win. Like I said, all the credit in the world for making big plays to seal the game, but passing wise he was a little off.
He’s a great QB. Mendenhall and his ability to break the tough tackles in the first half is IMO why we aren’t playin in the superbowl.
Well that and the fact RevisShouldaHadThatPick!!! Lol. Jk
-
-
-
That doesn’t even make sense. He dropped an easy interception. Regardless of how it happened, the guy is the best CB in the league and is usually money. I love Revis and the name I put up isn’t to make him look like an ahole, but rather a key moment in the game IMO.
-
-
I’m responding to this statement of yours from the other post (as comments are closed). You wrote:
“This could have been an easy win. This should have been an easy win. Why didn’t they play like that from the start?”
Excuse me but exactly WHY do you feel this “should have been an easy win”? That statement makes no sense. Do you feel the Jets somehow have the better team, perhaps based on the close (and quite fortune to be honest) win earlier in the year in Pittsburgh? I simply see no reason for any Jet fan to feel they have the superior team — the fact you think your team could’ve won going in I understand. The fact you think it should have been “easy” I don’t. Perhaps you’ll be kind enough to answer that for me. Because I gotta tell you, I’m pretty puzzled.
“Why didn’t they play like that from the start”? That one has already been answered in the thread above: the Steelers took control of the game and dominated. Nothing was given to them — they took. They rag-dolled the Jets. End of story.
Sometimes you have to admit the opponent gets paid too, and makes plays. Otherwise you’re not doing analysis, you’re cheerleading. Asking a question like “why didn’t they play like that from the start” is being a homer, not being an analyst.
I guarantee you every New England fan can play the same homer game, the “we gave them everything they got, we’re still better” thing. I didn’t hear many Jets fans talking about the touchdown pass the Pats dropped, or the gift fake-punt fiasco that led to another Jet that should have never been. No, over here that was just an example of Jets excellence — when it goes the other way, it’s just luck of course. Again, homerism not analysis.
Really, this kind of blind fanhood is worthy more of a know-nothing like Carton — and his brilliant “Steelers are not that good” speech before making his Jets 23-Steelers 0 prediction. Then, rather than being a man and owning up to being wrong, he wants to whine about what “coulda shoulda been.” Do you want to be talked about in the same breath as Carton?
-
Bent says:
Did you read the rest of the article or just that paragraph?
That was just meant to portray an emotional response to the feelings we all felt after the team played so poorly in the first half, then gave a much better account of itself in the second half. That paragraph was more poetic than analytical and then I moved on to the analytical stuff, as I always do.
I went into plenty of detail about how the Jets were dominated in the first half, notably in my analysis of players on each line.
I actually pride myself on being fair and objective. Maybe you should read the analysis of the week 15 win where I went into detail about how poorly we played defensively.
Again, I wasn’t intending to disrespect the Steelers, just to look at this from the Jets point of view.
-
I accept and respect your reply.
Thank you for not going down the Carton road, and whining like he did on WFAN about “what shoulda” been, and taking that stupid defiant “we’re still better” attitude.
Some Jets fans seem to think because their guys “won” the second half they deserved to win the game outright. Thanks for not being that dense, either.
You do need to go watch that Wallace play again — he really did burn Revis.
-
Bent says:
Okay, thanks for seeing things from my point of view.
Do you reckon you’d have beaten the Pats?
-
Notice he didn’t respond to the question about whether they would’ve beaten the Pats!! They would’ve gotten stomped by the Patriots with that weak secondary.
-
-
Watching it live, I’d have to agree that wallace did have a few steps on revis and a perfect throw would’ve been a touchdown. But if my memory is right, big Ben had to step to his right a little and to expect a perfect throw is asking a little much of the guy.
PS it’s a bad idea to call out bent. He’s probably one of the few guys that analyze the game thoroughly trying to show as little bias as possible. He is still a jet fan and this is a jet blog so if your looking for something pro-steelers check out espn
-
-
-
-
Will you do me a favor and re-watch the game again? And if you find a play where Wallace is running free a full two steps ahead of Revis, will you be fair enough to run a brief new post on it? Thanks.
-
Bent says:
See above.
I’ve already watched the game four times, which was hard enough. No thanks!
-
It’s ridiculous your even responding to the Steelers fans. My hats off to you for having the patience.
Sorry the name I chose started that absurd argument. I love Revis and the Jets with all my heart. That play in particular is just one that keeps coming back to me because Revis is such a great player and I believe that regardless of whether Wallace was open or not, with Ben making a throw like that 9 out of 10 times Revis makes that interception. It was a key part of the game that would’ve stopped what ended up being yet another first half scoring drive. May not have even changed the game, who knows.
But the idiotic argument that he shouldn’t have had the pick because Wallace was or wasn’t open is retarded. Fact is Revis had both hands on the ball. And IMO, he normally makes that catch/INT.
So buzz off Steelers. Shouldn’t u be worrying about Aaron Rodgers and the Packers right about now???-
No, what’s in question here is the fact you guys can spot a possible Steeler penalty from 100 miles away, but not a one of you saw Revis get beaten deep on that play?
Suddenly the eagle eyes are blind.
-
How thickheaded can you be??? That’s as big of a homer and hypercritical thing u can say. It doesn’t matter whether he was open! HELLO….the ball was terribly under thrown. Revis should’ve had a pick. Just like Wilson should’ve when your great QB threw a ball right to him and hit him in the face.
Why are u permitted to look through black and yellow glasses but we can’t look thru green lenses??
Maybe your basking in your glory because you GreenBay is gunn a spank you silly.
-
-
-
-
-
Sorry your too much of a homer to realize you had a lot of penalties go without being called on. It was ridiculous. Not the reason we lost, but it sure didn’t help.
The ball spotting by the officials even raised the commentators eyebrows.Use those eagle eyes of yours to see the lame pass Ben threw up that Revis should’ve intercepted.
I was kind of hoping that there was one guy who was the culprit of the majority of the missed tackles so that we could just get rid of them and fix the problem… oh well. But I would tend to agree with your assessment of the missed tackles. The official rulings are never really totally accurate just like with dropped passes. And Cimini is a buffoon so I can’t rely on his stuff being accurate either.