I disagree totally that there would have been a lot of complaints. When you start at the three yard line and are not in the endzone after two rushing plays it means that one or both of the previous plays was unsuccessful. A successful running play from inside the three gets you into the endzone, not a yard closer to the goal-line. Banking to getting three one yard running gains to score TD's from the three is not a recipe for success (IMHO). There might have been minor quibbling with the fact that you could have caught them off guard by throwing on first down rather than third, but that would have been all. Kind of like the play last week where most of the people wouldn't have had with running on third and two (after two successful running plays), but they had a huge problem with running on third and seven. I think metjetnet said it well with his comment about the fact that the next time they were in that situation they threw the ball and didn't try to make another statement.
You must not pay much attention to the NY Media and this message board if you don't think there would be complaints given that sequence of events. I guess we just have to disagree on that point. If they punched it in with the third run no one would complain at all and we'd hear about our o-line imposing there will on the big Pats front 7. I have no problem going for the TD that way when the percentages look good and you have a chance to make a major statement. That statement would be most important to the guys in the huddle having confidence in there ability to line it up and smash it down peoples throats than what the media or anyone else thinks. I also agree with metjetnet. Schotty saw the o-line fail the first time and corrected for that by changing the play calling. That was a smart adjustment by Schotty.
I would be willing to bet that the percentage of run plays called from the 1 yard line on 3rd down is much higher than the percentage of pass plays called (league wide).
That's what I said to my cousins at the game...... Set the precedent for the game. A supposed "A" list of names on the O-line, should be able to smash in 1.5 yards at a time. :shit: The rest of the play calling was a little too conservative for my tastes. At least 1 or 2 more deep shots please. Maybe Favre is having more trouble with the playbook than we thought. If so, let him be "FAVRE" and huck it every once in awhile.
I guess we'll have to learn to disgree about the (lack of) complaints if the Jets had passed on third down. Of course, if the Jets scored on third down you wouldn't hear about complaints. It always comes down to whether the players execute (because many play calls can be successful) and obviously the OL didn't perform in that circumstance.
I for one am very excited about Monday and Ill tell you why. First off, I like most of you, was very depressed and just pissed in general since the game on Sunday. However, I just had a wave of new emotions come over me. I have a feeling that this team is very pissed off after that loss as well. Not to mention the flack Eric is taking over the play calling and not using Brett to his potential. I have a strong feeling that things are going to open up this week. Eric doesnt want to look bad again and he will change his game plan. God Im a optimistic fool.
That's it. I hereby charge you with unlawful use of common sense, and willful misuse of knowledge of Jets fans' arguments.
We were running at 6ypc but not with a 3 TE set!!! If we ran 3TE at the 50, do you think we would have gained 6 YPC? Mangini decided to play Rugby instead of football. And NE is the better Rugby team.
You know, the football Giants were always very good at these goal line stands both on offense and defense. Year after year. It is more of a mindset than anything else. I have posted that I understand the concept of trying three times in a row. I know all the second guessers are having a ball with this series but when you line up in that formation, you are more or less telling the defense what you are intending to do. So my thought is a little trickery right off the bat would have planted a seed of doubt into the defense. I would have liked a play action pass on first down. The D was expecting run, the O was lined up for run, get a mismatch with the tall and big Bubba Franks.
The point is that we were controlling the LOS in the running game and making running lanes. On first and second down from that 3TE set we gained 1 yard. What is so outlandish about hoping to gain a yard on 3rd down? Maybe we would have tried to run it again on 4th down if Mangold and the left side of the line didn't get destroyed on 3rd down causing a loss.
We got Brett Favre here. We drafted a TE in the first round. We brought in Bubba Franks to be a red zone target. Let's use these guys! How about faking the run and having the TE go into the end zone. I'm comfortable taking my chances with Brett.
I agree we were controlling the LOS out of the regular pro-sets--why was this? It could have been because NE was keeping an eye on Favre and his passing ability. Whatever. Point is, why not continue with those sets when those sets were working? Why go 3 TE's and take away the possibilities? Please, give me a satisfactory reason to go 3 TE's in that situation. This will relieve my concern for next week.
Because normally you put in a goal line set when you're on the goal line. 3 TE's is normal for a goal line set, isn't it? I'd love to see more passes to the TE's too - especially in the red zone. I just don't think trying to run it 3x in that situation was a poor decision considering the circumstances involved. edit: Teams are also going to have to respect our willingness to run in that situation and out of that set going forward. This will open up the play action to the TEs. Not that this was the point of trying to run 3 times, but a nice side effect to an otherwise failed effort.
Just wondering, does anyone know if New England's secondary is any good? I mean, realistically, these nobodies couldn't have actually covered our receivers over the entire thirteen total yards Favre would have had to play with, right?
