exactly, I posted the same in another thread. It's like the media got to him and caused him to call a play that was uneccessary, ill advised. No matter how close it was to being executed. Basically at that time, the huge KO return and quick TD seized back momentum after SD went up 10. That kick swung it right back the other way. It wasn't the only reason they got their asses kicked, but it was a major swing
After we talk all this week why they sucked last night, one thing the better make sure, they better kick Arizona's ass next week at home going into the bye week.
Agree 100%. I've lost all faith in Mangini at this point. Your down by 3!!!! You give the Chargers a short field after they have carved up your defense. Dumb.
finally...somebody who's showing some sanity with a dash of intelligence. You sir,unfortunetly, are in the minority....but, i applaud you nonetheless.
Reposting what I first wrote in another thread: I liked it. And I said that to my nephew as we watched it. I felt like the D was gonna let them score whether we gave them the ball on the 20 or on the 50. So why not concede that inevitability if they get the ball, but give yourself a chance to keep it from them and get an unanswered score? In an expected shootout game, it made a lot of sense to me. In retrospect, seeing that the D was not gonna stop the Chargers no matter where they got the ball, and the Jets were gonna have to do onside kicks anyway to catch up, to me it seems very prescient and smart to try it when it was maybe least expected, and had the greatest chance of success -- and if it succeeded, we might get to avoid trying it later when it was expected & less likely to work. What am I missing?
On the money. In my heart I felt a win, in my mind I knew better. The Jets haven't been getting 3rd down stops all year, getting penalized horribly, not executing fundamentals or the gameplan for that matter... ...and I'm going to expect to compete on the road in San Diego? The scarier thought is a short week of prep for the two best WR tandem in the game....
I disagree. The reason that choice was bad there was because it probably was not going to work -- and the defense was not going to stop them on a short field. And they didnt.
I thought it was a good agressive call. It should have worked. It wasn't the call that didn't work it was the execution. We had them fooled and could not hold on to the ball.
Eric Mangini An onsides kick at 17-14 when you have all the momentum after a Leon Washington ankle breaking return that instantly led to a Brett Favre touchdown pass? It was a terrible, baffling call. The risk/reward wasn't there. Phil Rivers pounced with good field position and tossed a touchdown to Chris Chambers. San Diego went on a 21-0 run after the kick. .
This was such a bad call, I still can't believe it was made. I don't care that we should have gotten it, it was still a horrible call.
The risk/reward is too great to try that. You have to look at in terms of....What if it doesn't work? The fact that it worked in practice means zippo, because the kick is different every time. A football bounces differently on every play. It was dumb. We just scored. Give them the long field.
I liked the play call. I really did. We were Wallace Wright's hands away from taking over the game. And if you dont remember, darren sproles is one of the best kick returners in the game, and we had just taken one all the way back. That was a big chance, and we came up just short. But I think the reward was much bigger than the risk
Wallace Wright caused the kick to fail, not Mangini. Risk is part of the game in football. You run a risk every time you call a blitz. Hell, you run a risk every time you put the ball in the air. You rely on your players to execute the plays you call. Mangini had balls for calling the onside kick and relying on his players. It was obviously well timed and well practiced given the fact that the ball managed to get into Wallace Wright's hands. It was simply poor execution at that point. Human error. When you're playing a SB favorite on the road and that team is 0-2 and hungry, you take risks like that. It's a shame the play didn't work, yes, but it wasn't a bad call. By your reasoning, Thomas Jones never should have been asked to carry the ball since he fumbled it in Jets territory and gave the Chargers great field position.
Except the onside kick is an extremely low percentage play, not exactly the same as handing the ball off to your RB. I'm all for the Jets taking risks during the course of a football game but there are smart risks and stupid risks and this clearly falls into the latter category. We had just gotten back into the game with a TD and had some momentum. This one call gave all the momentum back to SD and we were unable to recover. Just a terrible call and leads me to believe that perhaps Mangini might not be as smart as I thought he was.
As of right now, the Chargers are the better football team. When you're playing a better football team, you have to take risks. That's the reason the Dolphins had so many gadget plays against the pats. If you remember the last time we surprised a team with an onside kick, it was the Colts 2 years ago. They were clearly the better team. We played with them the first half and we came out in the 2nd half and recovered an onside kick and that kept us in the game.
Sorry, But the Cromartie Pick 6 was the turning point. That play was clearly Pass Interference, and before you contradict me, go back to the previous week and look at the OPI call against Cotchery. Once the officials let that go, it was fairly evident that short of committing the rape of an offensive lineman in full view of the crowd, the crew was going to be very forgiving to SD, after the bad call the week before.
There are times to be aggressive and times to be conservative, and the right way to do each. That's what good coaching is. When I was watching Denver on offense against the Chargers, I found myself saying over and over again 'damn, that was an excellent playcall'. I can count on half a hand how many times I've said this about the Jets this year, but I know it was always on the defensive side of the ball. The onsides kick would have been intelligent if we had been clicking on offense and defense against SD. We were not. We were struggling on both sides of the ball.
Yup. 3 offensive plays into that game, they should have gone to a 4wr 1 back set with leon, to force Cottrell (who sucks at in game changes) to back out of the attack mode they were in. But Schott in the foot sucks just as bad as Ted.
