I was no fan of Herman Edwards, but things did seem a lot better under him in retrospect. Are the teams they coached so different as to render a comparisson invalid? Mangini took a broken team and turned them into a 10-win team then immediately back to reality. Herm, on the other hand, took a Super Bowl contender to the playoffs twice in a row. Looking back, we were all bitching about the same things back in 2001 and 2002, and we had winning seasons then. Considering how the posts on this board were very similar back then as they are now, perhaps the two coaching regimes aren't so different after all.
actually.....my darksider ideas this year are quite a bit different from those of the edwards years..... these days it is more of a talent issue, in some very key spots along the off and def lines. back in the days of herm - there was some decent talent along the lines, including abraham of course. there is a major difference regarding in-game management. we are miles ahead of what used to take place on the sidelines with herm. that is a very simplified comparison. i am sure others will enjoy giving more detail. jil
I think it is Apples and Oranges. Herm had a much better team in every aspect and I do not think we got nearly the productivity out of them we should have. All but one of our playoff appearence were because we backed in with the help of other teams; that is nothing to be proud of IMO. Mangini inhereted a team that was desimmated from poor field management, poor signings, poor trades, poor draft picks, and clueless player management. I think the 10-6 record Mangini put together his first year may have done more harm than good, but nevertheless I must give the guy credit for producing the unexpected. We did have a fairly easy schedule that year and arguably could have been at 11-5 or 12-4 if if weren't for a couple of games we played down to our competition. This year we got a healthy dose of reality, but I think it came at a very good time. Now Mangini's ability to address glaring problems and show creativity will be put to the test. Next year I think our schedule on paper looks a bit easier than this year and if the improvements are addressed in A+ fashion we should be way better off next year.
Mangini took over a 4 win team and got 10 and now 3. Herm took over a 10 win team in KC and got 9 and now 4. I have a feeling if Mangini had taken over the Jets with a Young Abe, Pennington pre shoulder operation, Coles, Ellis, Becht, Martin, Mawae, Fabini, Thomas, Wayne we might have done better than 10 wins.
I think we could pretty much count on it. Remember all the games that we lost due to extrememly predictable play calling and being ultra conservative (at this point I think the source was Herm and not Hackett). How many threads were started on this board because our CS had no time management skills and we lost games because of it. What dunderhead in their right mind tells a QB to take a knee in a critical playoff game deliberately backing up the place kicker to his margin for an attempted field goal?
No comparision..Mangini is a much, much, better coach then Herm was and ever will be..Anyone who really understands football knows the Jets are a prepared team..Hey players have to make plays and the jets need some playmakers..The draft is how you do that..pretty obvious they do a good job drafting.
Nothing in Mangini's less than 2 years of coaching can really serve to indicate, one way or the other, who he is or is not better than, including Herm. He's had his share of bumps along the road, questionable play calling and use of personnel. It's too early to say just how good or bad he is.
I liked Herm better because of his personality. Mangini and fake ass Pats stuff is annoying. We get it you like little "secrets"...blah, blah.
Agreed. that's why he needs another year to get a better read on him and the team. But he is in some pretty good company, as only he, Herm and Kotite are the Jets coaches who didnt have a better record in their second season than their first season.
While those issues were at the forefront when Herm was here, they seem to get largely swept under the carpet with this regime... The Herm/Hackett play selection was very predictable. Run, run, short pass, punt. However, the formations varied, we used a lot of play action, and, generally, although the play selection in terms of run or pass was obvious, the exact play was not.... Watching the games now, between the 20s, we essentially have two formations (except for when Brad Smith is at QB), with a couple variations of each; the deep one-back set, and the shotgun. We run 90% of the time out of the deep one-back set. Often times, the motion is EXACTLY the same, for the same play, 3, 4, 5 times in a game. I'm not just calling out 'run' when I see the formation and the down/distance, but I'm calling out where it's going, and so is the defense.... At least if we were going to run under Herm/Hackett and the whole stadium knew it, we'd line up with a FB or an extra TE, or both, and have a variety of running plays out of that formation... We go into the shotgun, and it's a pass 90% of the time, with the occasional draw play on 3rd and 6 or 7. Despite the gimmicks (the Brad Smith offense, the occasional trick play, the ridiculously unnecessary shifting) this offense is as predictable if not more predictable than the Herm/Hackett offense, and doesn't set itself up to succeed....
Hackett had more tools to work with, solid OL and a excellent running back and a great blocking TE and a great pass catching FB. He was far more into execution than trying to fool people but he had the tools to line up and win the battles by executing. This team doesn't have the tools to win the battle so they try and fool teams and it's just not working anymore. The bag of tricks has been emptied.
But the point is that, aside from the 3-5 gimmick plays per game, we're not fooling anybody (which I suppose you undrstand when you say 'the bag of tricks has been emptied). CBS had a stat about midway through the season during one of our games. When Jones lines up 8 yards deep, we run 96% of the time.... If CBS can put 2 and 2 together and come up with that, do you really think opposing defenses don't have it figured out? We're lining up in the same formations, over and over, and running similar, if not the same, plays.... This is not to defend the terrible predictability of Herm/Hackett, but rather to say that the few gimmick plays we get out of Schott every game does not equate to good playcalling... That, with a small, inexperienced offensive line, we got rid of our excellent FB (Sowell), and currently don't carry one, is indicative of the mindset and predictability of this offense. Most teams with struggling offensive lines will give them a boost, with extra FBs and TEs to help the running game, and in pass protection. Other than when we get into the RZ, or when we're backed up against our own goalline (or the occasional 3rd and inches) we NEVER line up in a heavy set.... We line up with Jones 8 yards deep, Baker to the right with a slot WR, and two WRs to the left. The slot receiver (usually McCareins or Smith) motions to the middle of the formation and 'breaks down' behind the LG, and we hand off to Thomas Jones behind him. That exact play is run AT LEAST 4+ times per game where we give Jones the ball a decent amount of times. Jones carried it 9 times (3x out of the Brad Smith offense, so really 6 times) against New England, and I counted that exact play twice, and a very similar carry one other time... That is TERRIBLE...
Trying to fool the opposition is a sign of a crappy O which is what we have. The best line by Simms about our team was when he talked about our D standing up, he said we had to do it because we don't have the talent to play NE straight up. Fooling teams as your basic O isn't going to work. Setting up a couple of bust out plays does work. We run the Rope a Dope O and when everyone is in we usually get one or two big plays up the seem. Last year guys made those plays, this years they are bouncing off hands.
The way I see it, Schottenheimer's offense is a lot like the play of many young QBs in their 2nd season in the way it's dropped off.... He first came into the organization, nobody knew what he was doing, and he caught a lot of people offguard with all his gimmicks. After having a full season + worth of film to study of his offense, the disgustingly obvious trends have come to the forefront, and defenses are just gobbling our offense up....
Herm inherited a much more talented team so you can't really compare......... Mangini gets 1 more go around to see if the team improves or he should go too.
Herm had a lot more talent and never won more then 10 games. Mangini matched that in his first year. If we would have had a healthy Curtis Martin and Chad last year we would have been 12-4.
That I agree with but the fact is if we executed and had the talent D's knowing what was coming wouldn't matter as much. In 04 we ran the ball down the throats of D's loaded up for the run simply becuase we matched up for 8 in the box and had the talent to open holes.
It's been said already but Herm inherited a team that had everything already established. The guy went and completely depleted the lines by getting rid of good, young players (at the time) like Thomas and Fergy. He never even bothered to draft replacements or build any depth at the lines. Mangini got a few young talented guys from Herm like Rhodes, Vilma, Thomas, Cotchery, and DRob. Beyond that he had to rebuild our almost completely depleted O-line. He basically had Ellis, DRob, and Thomas for the D-line for a 4-3, and thats terrible...and the perfect time to change the defense around completely. Herm on the other hand simply used up Parcell's talent and left little behind for his replacement.
