Greene's problem depend heavily on the OL issues... LTs run don't need the OL to be as dominant in the middle of the field. Once Mangold comes back we'll be able to decide...
Agree here. LT is awesome for 3rd downs and receiving, but Greene is a hard solid runner. The problems arising with our running game is not because of the RB's themselves, it's the OL. If your OL can not block, then there is no hole.
Greene remains the future but he is a one-cut, downhill runner best suited to a zone blocking scheme whereas LT is a much shiftier, evasive back with better lateral movement, balance and quickness. Would LT hold up for the duration? History says no. We had good success with sweeps against Oakland and I don't understand why we didn't continue with that (as opposed to returning to unsuccessful runs up the middle) as the old rule is that you continue with what works until your opponents figure out how to stop you or for big play misdirection when it becomes clear the opposing defense is going all in to try to stop what has heretofore been unstoppable. At this point, with the performance of our o-line in flux, for the purposes of short term evaluation over the next two or three games, I'd like to see the carry load divided more or less equally between the two in the first half of games with that continuing into the second halves unless the first half performance of one of the backs is significantly better than the other in which case we go with the hot hand. This may not be the most sustainable strategy but it might buy us (and our critically important running game) valuable time until our Oline finds its' feet and we can then revert to our original division of carries plan. I'd also like to see McKight and Powell get a couple of touches a game.
Greene is good, we just have to know how to use him. (doesn't help that the line is awful as well) i'd like to see McKnight get more carries though.
That is somewhat fair, but you have to break a tackle once in a while if you're not speedy enough to make anyone miss. While Greene is never going to be on McFadden's level, the Jets couldn't stop McFadden, knowing full well that he was the entire premise of the Oakland offense. Like you said, the problem isn't all Greene, but it is some.
Week 3 was the only week we tried running off tackle with Greene. When he goes up the middle he does nothing. Of course. when we run up the middle there is no line stunts, just try and bull forward. I would be interested to see what his ypc is off tackle vs up the middle. I would wager it would be way off.
That's what I'm thinking. Have LT run around all over them. Throw screens, short passes. Have him wear them out, and the put Greene in and have him run up the gut and knock some heads.
Right now, LT is the only back that has had any kind of production, so its a bit of a moot point. The other thing I'd add is that with the Oline seemingly lacking confidence, LT is also better at blocking assigments, and of course gives us the option.
... long term having lt in on 3rd downs & situational plays otherwise is the right move ... ... it will keep his legs fresh come playoff time ... ... LT is still one of the better rb's in the league ... being a grey-beard he needs to be time managed ... rex & co are doing right in their use of him ... l_j_r
Shonn Greene is the better option no doubt about it , But is not the long term or short term answer to pounding the rock. LT is in a perfect role on 3rd downs and we should do all that we can to keep his legs fresh . On a side note : Why have we not contacted the Saints about the availability of Pierre Thomas who is averaging : 4.8 yards per carry and 9.4 yards per reception this Yr . and only 5 carriers a Game . Sproles and Ingram have that backfield locked down and this guy is 27yrs old and has 5yrs under his belt . He could be the back the Jets need . give the PT Cruiser a Chance .
IMO, Shonn Greene needs 20 carries a game to be effective. Now, maybe he doesn't have the durability to run the way he runs for twenty plays, but that remains to be seen. Hand him the ball 20 times and then we'll see where we stand. I bet it'll either be with 100 yards rushing or an injury. I doubt he stays healthy and rushes for under 80.
Makes sense in principle but if you look at Greene in the second half of last Sunday's game, he looked really exhausted on some running plays and was struggling to keep his legs/feet moving whereas the old man (who admittedly had less carries and withstood far less pile abuse) looked much quicker to me.
If we can manage to get a lead in the 2nd half of game then you will most definitely see him get those carries. Always being behind has taking a lot of carries away from him when he does his best work.
