Not that I like the strategy, just feel the Jets have little choice if they want to remain somewhat competitive in ball games. The way I see it, opposing defenses vs. this Jets offense is going to be like lions stalking wildebeest. They're not going to win anyway, so what's the point of playing not to lose? The question becomes whether it's better to lose 40-6 or 20-6. With the latter, I think the players are more likely to have hope for the future.
I understand your perspective, and there is some validity to it. IMO playing that way gives the team little or no chance to win. While this season isn't about wins and losses, it could creates several more insidious problems than losing or losing big. Let me ask you this, "Why do you think the Jets won't lose 40-6 if their offense continually goes 3 and out?" The D will be exhausted by early-to-mid 3rd quarter, if not halftime. If the D is stopping opponents, but offense is contributing nothing, what about the wonderful chemistry and team spirit that is developing? Do you think that will last very long? I don't. The team will be split. We don't want the rebuild to blow up in our face before it's even halfway done. NOTHING is more dispiriting than playing too conservatively. Everyone, players and fans get frustrated. The offensive players would probably just give up. They would have no hope for this season or the future. Another insidious result is the young offensive players would not develop, and the team would have little or no idea who was going to be able to help them going forward. This is especially true regarding the QBs. The Jets have to find out what they have in Hack. With the way Bowles is handling Petty, whatever chances he had of developing are probably being screwed and his spirit will be broken. If the Jets play a conservative offense, the spirit of every offensive player will be broken, and eventually, the defense's will as well. Conversely, if they're playing more aggressively, or at least in a reasonable fashion, it's more fun, the players will stay looser, will have a chance to develop and show what they can do, and we would have a chance of actually winning a few games, and building hope and confidence in the team. Playing not to lose is the same stupid crap as the prevent defense that we see so many dumbass HCs employ at the end of games where their D has been dominant. More often than not, those teams wind up losing because when a team plays soft or passively most QBs and offenses in the NFL can pick up big chunks of yards, move down the field quickly and score. I say that Bowles and Herm both need to grow a pair, and quit being so afraid of success (and their own shadow). Playing not to lose is for losers and cowards imo. Please understand that I mean no disrespect to you, 314 or any other posters who agree with you. I just feel that strongly and passionately in my hatred for the prevent D and for playing "not to lose." I'd always rather go down swinging and at least putting forth an attempt to win, than meekly and passively be beaten before I even started. Confidence means a lot to players. Playing not to lose destroys confidence in each other and their CS.
With McCown at QB, no we aren't capable of winging it down the field, but with either Hack or Petty we are. We have two strong-armed QBs and we have the fleet-footed WRs. None of us knows how poorly or how well the OL will perform, so let's quit pretending that we already know.
I think NC and Westie are both right here. This team is going to lose. A lot. If the offense trots out for half-a-yard-and-a-cloud-of-dust every snap, the offense isn't going to develop, and team chemistry is going to go to shit. If the offense goes for broke every snap, and starts chucking the ball around, then our QBs are going to get killed behind this line, opposing defenses are going to win the game on their own, and the defense will be exhausted and demoralized by game four. I would suggest that the offense play conservatively (not run-only conservatively, but don't-turn-the-ball-over conservatively) until the other team is up by some number of points, probably 17 in quarters 1-3, 10 in the 4th quarter (which probably be the case almost every game), at which point the offense should open it up and go for broke. At that point they really need to air it out, no-holds-barred. We should be seeing high-risk passes and contested catches all over at this point. That's how you find out what your QB, your OL, and your skill position players are really made of. Remember that this defense is very young this year, as well. It's important that they spend as many snaps as possible playing to win, or at least playing to keep the game within reach. I'm not saying prioritize defense over offense--only that offensive strategy has a bigger impact over the way the defense plays throughout the game than vice versa. --All the more reason a modern team should be built around the offense, IMO, but the Jets aren't there, and they're not getting there this year.
Good post. To be clear, I never advocated going for broke on every snap, just that they play a normal offense where teams are being aggressive, trying to get 1st downs, move the chains, eat up the clock, drive down the field and score.
My 40-6 estimate is based on the Jets turning the ball over a few times if they try to throw the ball too often with this offense. If they had some play makers on O, I would agree 100% with you, but this offense is going to have opposing D's salivating. Even if the O goes 3 and out a lot, I think the D could be good enough to hold most teams to between 20 and 25 points, even if on the field a lot. It's the turnovers that will run up the score on the Jets.
I think they do have some play makers in ASJ, Powell, Anderson, and possibly McGuire, Leggett, and one of the young WRs like Stewart or Harper. I think the D is that good as well, but imo does it really matter if the team loses by 10, 20, or even 30 points? It would make a difference if the players weren't that good, but if it's the scheme, the way Bowles/Rodges utilize them, or simply that they were tired from being on the field too much, then it wouldn't imo. To me, the development of young players and finding out who can help them going forward is the only reason to play this season. If they accomplish both of those things and the team loses every game 40-6, it will be a success. Conversely, if they win a game or two and lose the rest by an average of 7-10 points, but don't accomplish either of those things, then the season will have been an abject failure. This season isn't about pride or saving face. Since the Jets seem to have some quality options at TE and a bunch of question marks at WR, I wonder if any consideration is being given to running a lot of 2 TE formations? I know that ASJ will be out the first two games serving his suspension, but Leggett and Gragg or Tomlinson, would provide additional blocking in the rushing attack and also give options for short passes. Then when ASJ is back for the 3rd game, ASJ and Leggett could be a very effective combo. NE thrived in the past with a 2 TE-centered offense and mostly crap at WR. Maybe the Jets can have at least some success even though they don't have a Brady.
Herman Edwards. I was really pumped over the hire, and it was a boatload of fun at times. Like when the entire locker room would stare at him after a game because they had no clue what he was talking about. The quotes are endless. Snappy dresser, kept himself in impeccable physical shape, spoke a foreign language that occasionally resembled English, did a lot of unintelligible mumbling. Then I found out that he couldn't tell time, ran 'Club Med', and went on to become, in the immortal words of an acquaintance, Kansas City Kotite. I have no animosity towards Herman Edwards at all. He just couldn't Hackett. Drums, cymbal. Seriously, though, he tried. And succeeded. In giving me ulcerative cholitis. A part of me still likes Herm, I gotta say, even though I remember the EXACT day that I soured on him. Sunday, October 2nd, 2005. Ask me. Anyway, it's not like Edwards didn't want to win it all. He was just out of his depth like every mofo who has ever coached this idiot team since Weeb. And I'm talking Weeb in wheelchair with a blanket over his legs getting pushed through a nursing home. At this point, I wouldn't care if the GM was Hitler and the HC was Stalin with Idi Amin as the head of player personnel. Yes, it's that bad. What was this about again? Right, Herman Edwards. As you were.
As a personality, I think Herm is entertaining. He was funny (unintentionally). I knew by preseason or very early in the season that he would never work, that he was just a walking, talking cliché/platitude machine. As far as I'm concerned his one shining moment was the Jets 41-0 shellacking of the Colts in the playoffs. I still can't figure out how Herm accomplished that.
Oh, yes, 2001. Also the last time the Jets won the Division. Personally, I enjoyed beating the favored Chargers in San Diego in overtime in the Wildcard game in 2005*. I didn't enjoy Eric Barton trying to re-create postseason Gastineau, but I enjoyed the rest of the game very, very much. *2004 Season, game was played in Jan. '05.
The Lord (Pennington) to Coles. I was there (what else?!), and the after party tailgate in the parking lot was almost better than the game. Almost. Even though we sat on Row Excellent on the 50, we snuck down to the first row on the 20 just to get a different angle on the destruction. I pretty much saw CoIes catch a TD in my face and then The Lord pointed at his bicep in a moment of supreme holiness. I still have that ticket stub, haha. I'll always remember Warner Wolf saying, "Chad, it's not that easy!" on the highlights. I was high on life for a week. Three months later, I lapsed into a coma, and the rest is history.
Warner Wolf!!! "Let's go to the videotape." Now there's a name out of the past. I liked him, but my favorite sportscaster in NY was Jerry Girard. He rarely failed to crack me up.
Sounds like you are. Petty won't see the field if he's even on tbe team. Let's hope you r right but I doubt it. Btw a football game is not the same as punt pass and kick or a track meet. Reply if u wish but I am done. Love to be wrong.
How many games have you seen legget play? Asj is all talk until I see different but u have the TE position as a strong point. Geez
I saw Leggett play a LOT at Clemson. I've been reading the reports from OTAs, minicamp and TC. I know that Gragg is good blocker and has experience. Tomlinson is supposedly a good blocker as well. ASJ was very good in college. I wanted the Jets to draft him when he entered the draft. He's been the most consistent star of all their offseason practices. He is tearing it up. Be a cynic and doubter if that makes you happier, but if you've paid any attention at all, you should see that the Jets TEs are already better than any TE unit we've had in years, and they could wind up being the strength of the offense.
Germ Edwards was so predictable. I could sit on my couch on Sunday and call out the offensive play. He was the best talker for sure and I was thrilled Kansas City wanted him and he took the clock watcher Dick Curl with him.
Can't be too conservative,especially with a young qb . Have to let him throw some on first downs and 2nd and shorts. Can't only have him pass on obvious passing downs and let the d tee off. We are probably not going to win individual battles by pure skill so we have to keep the defense guessing to create an advantage. I'm concerned with Bowles that this could be a problem.
