Yeah, if the offensive playcalling stays like it's been, we'll be running Thomas Jones straight into Marcus Stroud all game long.
They've been practicing extra hard to stop the pass ever since Penny lit them up last week and would never expect us to continuously run at Stroud. Nothing would fool them more - it's genius.
Great post, except for brevity. I can say everything you just said in just three words: the coaches suck.
Honestly, if a team is giving up that much on any one particular area, you need to exploit that area. I think Jet fans are not capable of happiness, but at the same time I think Schotty sucks!
Yes that's a nice average but imagine how many yards and how many less INTs there would have been had we given Jones more that 5 carries in the 1st half? The point is KC is awful and our putrid play calling kept them in the game.
The point Cannizzaro semi-failed to make is this: you have to establish the honest game before the deceptive game works. You can't run a reverse until they've committed all their energy to stopping the dive. THEN all this shit that Schotty's doing will be golden. But not until then.
I agree with this post 100%. A team has to develop a personality that they know that teams are game planning for, and are going to focused on stopping. Then you hit them with the counter stuff. End around and play actions are perfect examples. If you have a good power running game, the play action makes the QB look like an All Pro. They are just getting to cute. You don't go using trick plays against weak teams. You just go out and kick their ass. If you are playing against a strong team that you think may have better personnel then you, now you throw a gadget plays in on top of your established running game in hopes of catching them off guard. Gadget plays to trick Herm? C'mon
Really? The INTs and pass D have nothing to do with it? I really think this board expects every win to be smooth, effortless, and perfect each time out. Thats not football.
Here's a fun fact. Every team in the NFL that beat the Chiefs had a 2:1 runass ratio. Our morons had a 1:2 runass ratio. The only other team to do that was the Broncos, who lost to the Chiefs. The Jets lucked out. The Pats had a 1:1 ratio against the Chiefs, and only won by 7 pts, the 2nd lowest margin of a win against the Chiefs, with the Jets leading the way with a 4 pt win. Running the shit out of the ball against the Chiefs guarantees a 2 possession win. Every team has won by that much. The Coaching Staff is fucking stupid. I'd like everyone to go to NFL.com and go through each Chief game and look at the rushing stats for the other teams. Its usually 35-48 rushes to 17-22 passes.
Doing the opposite of what other teams have done to beat the Chiefs is a way to build character by sucking to a win. Why make it effortless and smooth and perfect to look at when you can look like shit against Herman's disaster team? BRILLIANT COACHING!
Lol...none of this should be put on the players. And it definitely shouldn't be considered that we won...cause it was a *close* win...the worst kind of win. Gotta love the double standard...it's bottom line come loss week...but if they win we should figure out what "went wrong" with that win. You know whats hurt more than playcalling during our 2-1 3 game slump? 9 turnovers vs. 1. But don't play on that... BTW: We ran on the Raiders and you guys said we had a dominant, HOF bound QB so we should be passing. What happened to that? An almost loss suddenly throws that one out?
IF you were a player, you'd be cut, because you'd never look at the weaknesses in your game and improve on them. Complacency is your middle name.
Except nothing is being fixed. No-name and noob QB's keep looking like All Pro's against us. The playcalling is still baffling. The turnovers are still high (yes, it's Favre's fault to some degree, but he's being told to pass when he shouldn't be). Aside from fumbleitis Warner, we're not creating a lot of turnovers. Eric Smith continues to see the field when I'm wondering if he should even have a roster spot at this point. The list goes on. So, tell me, since you've just admitted that things need to be fixed -- of them, what has been fixed?
What JCotchrocket says reminds me of things I've read in multiple places about the dynamic in Green Bay in recent years. The situation was that the coordinator would call in the plays, but Favre as often as not would alter them slightly, or audible completely. It probably was driving the coaching staff there bananas, there were rumors of frustration, but it was Brett freakin' Favre doing it in Green Bay, so what could they do? He owned the offense. He even started calling meetings himself with just the receivers and him, no coaches (just like he started to do here). They sit in a room and talk about what they think they can do, and what they should try. You don't think that would drive some coaches nuts, that they are doing this with no coaches allowed? I think it probably lead to them being motivated to stonewall him from coming back, they really wanted control back for themselves. I guess as non-management professional technical staff, but a project leader within non-management (i.e. lots of collaboration), I relate a lot to what I think they (Favre and receivers) were trying to do. My work is very technical, and the management (analogous to coaches) frankly doesn't appreciate all the nuances and possibilities and limitations and consequences. That has not stopped some from trying to micromanage anyway, as I think they feel they have lost control of what we are doing if they don't, and they feel like that is their job, to control (or, in football, "coordinate"). Invariably, bosses who don't understand all the details or technical factors/limitations -- how could they understand them as well as the "players" knowing their own abilities? -- trying to micromanage leads to an inferior product, at best it slows everything to a crawl and wastes our time as we try to keep them up to speed so they can then make a decision, at worst we make bad decisions -- and we are knowingly doing it, amongst the actual "players," and that sometimes kills morale & our effectiveness. I've worked for both good bosses and bad, and it's my observation that what separates a good boss from a bad is that a good boss 1) if something is preventing you from doing your job better, the clear it out of the way, and 2) if you have what you need, they just get out of your way and let you do your job, and leave it to you and your colleagues to determine the best way to do it. The get the best people they can, they set the overall goals and strategic directions, but when it comes to the ultimate execution of those directions, they basically try to stay out of their way. Not a perfect analogy to football, but ... I don't think it's too far off what Rhodes and Favre were trying to say: "We know what we do best, and we can learn what each other does best, and help others to learn what we can do; just enable us to go out and do it."
A battalion commander shouldn't be doing what a company commander is doing; a company commander shouldn't be doing what a platoon leader is doing; a platoon leader shouldn't be doing what a squad leader is doing. And have we got a control freak of a battalion commander, who tries to micromanage down to what a squad leader is supposed to be doing? Probably.
