I loved in the beginning of the year when Mangini was going for it on 4th and 2s from his 30 yard line. I really thought the turning point was him letting Nugent try the 54 yarder. I thought he was really agressive. Now, lately it seems like Mangini has been very conservative. A number of times it has gotten on my nerves that we punt instead of kckng a 52-53 yarder. We know Nugent has the leg. Also, not going for it at the 2 in todays game when it was 17-10 I thought hurt us. We would just have to play catchup the whole game. Nothing is wrong with conservative, that is not what I'm saying. Just what changed Mangini's agressive philosophy?
Well this is his first playoff game. We are no longer playing the Packers, Raiders, Dolphins, or the Lions. We are playing a team who won three superbowls since the new decade. He just wanted to put up some points on the board and to hope our defense can get a stop. Which we didn't.
Once the defense started playing better he started to trust them more so we didn't have to take chances like we did. Thats my explanation for the new philosophy.
After having some time to think about it, I was also wondering if Mangini played it too conservative today. We had the reverse and the lateral that was a disaster. I expected Brad Smith to be utilized as more than just a decoy. I would have like to see a short toss to Smith and then have him throw downfield. Mangini wasn't this conservative in the regular season. He did play it conservative today. Maybe he thought the Pat's D could see trick plays coming from a mile away or maybe it was just his inexperience as a head coach. I don't know. I did expect the Jets to play a little more loose this afternoon. Whatever. This team under Mangini is headed in the right direction. Too bad we have to wait until September to see what was learned today.
Probably because being overaggressive on one side of the ball backfired, seeing as how the Patriots picked up everyone of our blitzes perfectly. We were aggressive, if you think about it. Going for onside kicks, and 4th and 4's is just something you don't see in the postseason regardless of the coach. If you can't execute at the things that you've planned on doing, then how the hell are gadget plays that you practice once a week, going to work? We were overaggressive on defense, and it didn't work. Things could've went horrible if we tried too many trick plays on offense. Against a team like New England you have to play it conservative since they execute every phase of the game perfectly. Not executing overaggressive plays kills momentum. The Patriots were ready for our blitzes, just as I suspect they would've been ready for flee flickers and such. Teams know that we use Brad Smith as a variable, and that he can get the ball in so many ways. If you noticed, the defense shifted more then usually when he went in motion. It's like the onside kick against the Bears. How are you going to win by trying to catch a team off guard, when that team is one of the best prepared teams in the NFL?
'05 Steelers type of playing? I think that he started to be conservative when he tried an onside kick against the bears that we didnt recover and then the bears broke the ice scoring the first points of the game cause of the onside kick.
Not going for it at the 2 was the right call. Had it been closer I think Mangini would of opted for the 4th down play. But after the Baker reception the spot was a little further than expected, but it was too far to go for it. I don't really have a problem on what he did today. Even on the punt where the Pats got it at the 14, Dillon fumbled so it actually worked out. He didn't seem really conservative to me.
he wasnt conservative. I dont know the stats but Chad through alot. When your defense sucked like ours did today you cant give the ball on the 40 yard line.
^But in this case he did was he wanted and got the result. The plan in Buffalo was to pin them deep and force a 3 and out, which backfired. Today Graham pinned them at the 14, could of been better but Dillon fumbled and the defense put the offense in a great position.
He has been conservative alot of the year then he taks some bad chances. my biggest problem is every time we get around the 10 we run, run then set up near impossible 3rd and longs. He'll learn, I have confidence in him.
I believe he was leaning on chad to must ,thinking he could pull it out without the trickery. I agree that after that Bear game he seemed to get a little more conservative.
They run when they get near the goal line because they know that Chad can't operate effectively down there. The Jets were 20th in rushing yards and 30th in YPA yet 10th in rushing TDs this year. The only passing play that works down there is the play action fake to Baker and that's when they're RIGHT on the goal line.
Maybe Chad's arm got weaker as the season went on from thre stress of carrying an entire football team. Chad's weak arm carried us all year, I don't think his arm has anything to do w/ it.
I think this game was called correctly. In the second quarter, we totally had the Pats all discombobulated and out of sync. If any team wants to beat t he Pats this year, they should look at how we got them all messed up in the second quarter. In this case, you just have to give props to Belly for making great half time adjustments. Also, the lateral play was a killer. You can't make mistakes against the Pats, especially when you are not as good as them to begin with.
It's the chicken and the egg. The Jets probably run as well or better then normal towards the goal line but Chads effectiveness takes a big hit. His arm strength is the problem down there.
