Jump to content

CHAD learning to read DEFENSES- Again!


Kentucky Jet

Recommended Posts

New lessons in reading

Heimerdinger says Chad has to exploit favorable matchups

BY KEN BERGER

STAFF WRITER

September 7, 2005

Chad Pennington learned the language of defensive coverage in college, but for the past four years it was all Greek to him.

In Paul Hackett's version of the West Coast offense, the quarterback essentially did not read defenses. The progression of reads, from the first option to the third, stayed the same no matter what the defense did.

If Pennington recognized that his third read - let's say, Wayne Chrebet - had single coverage, it didn't matter. The offense still required him to look at option No. 1 first, even if that was Justin McCareins facing double coverage.

Now Pennington is wading cautiously into the brave new world of the Jets' new coordinator, who couldn't give a Heimerdinger about reads and progressions. Mike - Heimerdinger, that is - simply wants Pennington to find the most favorable matchup on every play and exploit it.

"We're trying to sell the receivers and the tight ends and the backs that everyone is alive on every play," Heimerdinger said. Sounds simple, unless you're a quarterback trying to read a foreign language.

"It's like taking Spanish in college and then trying to read Spanish four years later," Pennington said. "You recognize some words, but it's like broken English."

Hola, Se

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Pennington recognized that his third read - let's say, Wayne Chrebet - had single coverage, it didn't matter. The offense still required him to look at option No. 1 first, even if that was Justin McCareins facing double coverage.

That is frightening. Hackett's arrogance shows once again.

Dinger goes with the hot hand which I like. If someone is having a good day, get them the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Paul Hackett's version of the West Coast offense, the quarterback essentially did not read defenses. The progression of reads, from the first option to the third, stayed the same no matter what the defense did.

If Pennington recognized that his third read - let's say, Wayne Chrebet - had single coverage, it didn't matter. The offense still required him to look at option No. 1 first, even if that was Justin McCareins facing double coverage.

Well, now. THAT explains a few things. #-o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its simply amazing how ANY coordinator could subscribe to a theory like Hackett did.

It boggles the mind.

I think Dinger's philosophy boils down to "throw it to the guy who is open" which most of us figured out in the schoolyard.

Hackett apparently didnt. :shock:

Or as has been mentioned, he was too arrogant to do it any other way but his way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New York Daily News -

Chad plays defense for Hackett - and himself

Friday, December 17th, 2004

Chad Pennington defended embattled offensive coordinator Paul Hackett yesterday. As for the criticism directed at him, Pennington said, "I don't have to defend myself."

The Jets' QB, coming off one of the worst games of his career, suddenly is being hounded by a perception that he can't win a so-called big game.

"I don't need to defend myself to anyone or anybody," Pennington said. "We've won big games here in the past and we will continue to win big games. I've lost two big games, those are the facts. (He was referring to road games against the Patriots and Steelers.) I can't do anything about that. What I can do is bounce back and show what I'm made of."

Pennington, a staunch Hackett backer in the past, continued to throw in his support for his boss.

"We're 9-4, and we started off with a bang. People tend to forget that," Pennington said. "I don't understand what we need the guy to do."

"In all our losses, we've had a chance to win," he added. "The New England game (a 13-7 loss) wasn't his fault. The Pittsburgh game (17-6) wasn't his fault. Everyone has their own opinions on Baltimore (20-17 in OT).

"So, no, I haven't changed at all (on Hackett)."

The Jets have been held under 23 points in nine of 13 games this season.

~~~~~~~~~

Pennington made similar comments after the dismal 2003 season. Ray Mickens went to bat for Ted Cottrell and said "How come Ted got bounced but Hackett didn't".

Ray was right. But teflon Herm had his reasons, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its simply amazing how ANY coordinator could subscribe to a theory like Hackett did.

It boggles the mind.

I think Dinger's philosophy boils down to "throw it to the guy who is open" which most of us figured out in the schoolyard.

Hackett apparently didnt. :shock:

Or as has been mentioned, he was too arrogant to do it any other way but his way.

thats cause hackett never actually played in the schoolyard.

he monitored the playing from the upstairs classroom window :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pennington made similar comments after the dismal 2003 season. Ray Mickens went to bat for Ted Cottrell and said "How come Ted got bounced but Hackett didn't".

Ray was right. But teflon Herm had his reasons, I guess.

Chad is, if nothing else, a stand up guy who I dont think we'll EVER see throw anyone else, from HC to waterboy, under the bus.

I agree that Ray was right. I also agree with Chad that you never speak badly about the boss in public and you sure don't burn bridges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chad is, if nothing else, a stand up guy who I dont think we'll EVER see throw anyone else, from HC to waterboy, under the bus.

I agree that Ray was right. I also agree with Chad that you never speak badly about the boss in public and you sure don't burn bridges.

I understand your point, but whether the players (in this case Ray and Chad) like a coordinator or don't like a coordinator (or say they do) should have nothing to do with the decision that has to be made by the HC to fire that person or not. The decision should be made based on job performance, not on popularity.

What could Herm have possibly seen during the 2003 season that would suggest Hackett was entitled to come back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your point, but whether the players (in this case Ray and Chad) like a coordinator or don't like a coordinator (or say they do) should have nothing to do with the decision that has to be made by the HC to fire that person or not. The decision should be made based on job performance, not on popularity.

What could Herm have possibly seen during the 2003 season that would suggest Hackett was entitled to come back?

I think he saw 2002 and considered 2003 to be the aberration. 2004 made it perfectly clear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand your point, but whether the players (in this case Ray and Chad) like a coordinator or don't like a coordinator (or say they do) should have nothing to do with the decision that has to be made by the HC to fire that person or not. The decision should be made based on job performance, not on popularity.

What could Herm have possibly seen during the 2003 season that would suggest Hackett was entitled to come back?

I hear you. Herm should definately have seen it, and whacked the Hack a long time ago. But as Scott points out, if you look just at 2002 & 2003, Hack had good and bad. 2004 really tipped the scales to bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope he can read them while laying on his back - cuz Chad's in for a looooooong day come Sunday!

You're right bob the guy is funny.I'm gonna miss him too

i've read some funny stuff on this board but trash talking from the likes of a kc defensive perspective, well that just tickles the dang funny bone

.

seriously amd, how did it feel typing it out.did you keep a straight face?

I gotta lot of respect for the chiefs & you are class guys that have come over here to livin up our board(which I for one appreciate) but I gotta know, was that a serious post? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...