Francesca and Russo's

They actually were very positive about the Jets. Mike was for the 4th down call and Chris was against it,but he didn't down the call too much knowing that you have to go for TDs vs the Colts.

 

Fatso had a pretty good point.... if you hated the fourth and goal call, then hate the on sides kick call too. Mangini was coaching to win.... something Beningo was harping on earlier. I, like Beningo, refuse to critisize those calls. It's a very pleasant change... playing to win, instead of coaching to avoid a loss. As for the play call there.... unless it's a yard or less where a QB sneak might work, we know we can't run it up the gut and score. Play action was a good call, but the Colts weren't fooled.

If we were a playoff caliber team, then the play call would have been different, because playoff caliber teams can run it in from the two yard line. I like the gutsiness Mangini shows, and I think Schotty light is a damned good OC.

For a rookie HC, OC, DC, not to mention Fergy and Mangold..... this team and staff have exceeded my expectations. I am doing my very bestest to not say something that is bannable this week.... and it isn't easy with some of these posts, lemme tell ya.

 

I was for the onside kick.. wouldn't have been my call, but I was OK with it.

I was 100% against the go for the TD, because of the field position. If it was EARLIER (1st half) in the game, I could have lived with it, but not late int he 3rd in a tie game. I'm sorry, but you do not have to be for both or against both.

With that all said, I'd rather err on the aggressive side, and it was nice to see.

 

Agree completely. Although I was more 85% against the TD. Normally I love to go for the TD at 4th and goal from the 1, so part of me had to love it from the 2 or 3. But rational Jetfanmack knew that it was the wrong play.

 

Mangini was coaching with an eye on whos on the other side of the field...and it was Manning.

If the Jets were playing another team...with an average offense..he would never had done that.

Thats the bottom line...and thats why anyone would have a tough time knocking him for it.

Would Mangini try an onside kick against a team that isnt moving the ball? Hell no..just like he wouldnt go for it on fourth down during a 10-7 game..with both teams struggling for scoring chances.

So the next time this happens...the press will go wild on how "Mangini learned his lesson" and of course..they will have it wrong again.

 

Talk about a safe post..so you were for what worked..and against what didnt.

What do you mean you were for the onside kick? Today? As they lined up you were predicting it or hoping for it?

I dont understand how anyone could even admit that they were for the onside kick...I dont get that.

The onside kick and going for a play on fourth down from the two yard line are two completely different chances.

Im trying to envision anyone..including you..coming on to this site if the onside didnt work and saying "hey...I liked giving the Colts the ball on our 40 yard line after a score".

Doubt it.

EDIT: For the record...I loved the onside kick...today that is.

 

:up: Yep.... no threads complaing about the on sides kick today, but lots about the 4th and goal. Had that worked... well, we can't say what would have happened, but the complexion of the game would have changed. And the posts would all be praising Mangini instead of Monday second guessing.

The on-sides kick wasn't just pulled from a hat. I either heard or read(can't remember which now) that Rhodes said Westoff had practised this, because the Colts ten to line up deep, cheating back a bit to set up the return. Rhodes said he was sill surprised however, when they made the call. People like to bash Nugent too.... but how many have given him proper props for a PERFECT kick there?

I think Jets fans just prefer to complain.... butthen again, it seems like most NFL fans do too, regardless of team loyaties. Nature of the beast.

 

Exactly thunder...and just for the record...Im not saying I was against it..or didnt want it..lol...I just have no idea how a poster could ADMIT today they were for it.

That play wasnt made for anyone around here to take credit for....and that wasnt Mike F's point..that play was to either be admired if it worked...or trashed if it didnt.

 

I thought they should have kicked the fg there...but at that point it was 14-14--you have no idea what decisions are going to be made differently if we are up 3. PLUS, we had TWO chances to win and couldnt stop them both times -- so the three points was meaningless.

Again -- this is a meaningful loss (aka moral victory) if we go out and beat jax.

 

Please Please Please.....using that insipid idiot Mad Dog in any discussion is an insult to honest discourse. He is and always was a one-note moron. I give Francesa credit for intelligence despite his bent for covering his great big butt.

 

Even if the onsides kick didn't work I would have liked the call. It was unexpected, took them by surprise, and was the result of seeing something on the film from previous games. Short field or not, Peyton usually scores so giving them the ball on the 40 wouldn't have made much difference. Not taking 3 points when easily available was a mistake, I said so before the play and would have said it even if it had worked. But I don't have to agree with everything he does, I love the overall job he is doing.

 

Mike is positive b/c it's a Parcells protege and he likes Mangini. The OS kick had nothing to do w/ 4th and G. the onside kick was a risk but there was a good chance we could catch Indy sleeping and it was early in the game. The 4th and G was late in the 3rd tied up and the odds of scoring a TD there are slim especially w/ the jumbo package we had in the game.

 

Nope.. you are dead wrong.

I SAID I was OK with them doing it. I wouldn't have called it. However, at that point in the game, I still thought we needed to get a turnover to have a chance in the game. That onside kick was like getting a turnover. It was risky, but early in the game, risks are a little easier to take.

If we did not get the onside kick, I would have NOT been angry about trying it. Of course, the consequences meant the colts got the ball around the 45 or so...

I don't appreciate the accusation that I wasn't objective and let the results effect the judgement.

If we scored a TD on that 4th and 2 play I still would have hated it. If we did not get the onside kick, I still wouldn't have been terribly upset.

 

Who in gods name took credit for the onside kick? Not me. Mangini can, and Westoff can, but I certainly can't. This post makes no sense.

 

The way Nugent was kicking off the difference in field position even if the Jets didn't recover wouldn't have been all that much better for the Colts.

 

I got a chuckle out of this..

Nugent wasn't bad early in the game on Kick offs, but at the end they got short.

 

Sorry if you feel that way but when someone opens a post with "I was for the onside kick.. wouldn't have been my call, but I was OK with it.

I was 100% against the go for the TD,"

Again...I dont know how someone would want to admit that they were "for the onside kick". Isnt that like being "for landing on the moon"...after the fact?

I guess my point is that Mike F. is totally right on this....if you are going to be for taking chances..whats more risky...giving payton manning the ball on the 40 yard line? Or going for it on fourth down from the 2. Either way you are risking points.

I would assume giving the ball to the colts on their own 2 yard line would be less risky then giving it to them on the our 40. Now you might reply that one is definite points...we took 3 off the board.

I would reply giving Manning the ball on our 40 is guaranteed points too.

Just seemed like a very safe post to me. I could be wrong..when I am...I admit it.

 

Just seems like you were 2 for 2 on those critical decisions....did I say take credit? I must have been thinking about another post...I should have said you were 2 for 2. Mangini was 1 for 2...Westhoff was 1 for 1.