How do you guys like this play call on 3rd down?

[JohnnyHector]

_{Another thing if Sanchez throws to McKnight that guy doubling Kerley probably steps in front and takes it to the house since he starts jumping the route as soon as Sanchez turns back.}

That's who I was referring to. I called him McCourtey, but now realize it was another guy. If he throws to McKnight on that play, there is a good chance it gets picked, in my opinion.

It's James Ihedigbo, not Deion Sanders. Way too much ground for him to cover and Kerley's route obstructs his path to the ball. The likely scenario, provided the pass is thrown accurately, is that McKnight spins to the outside, Ihedigbo misses because he takes a bad angle, and he picks up the 1st.

[JustInFudge]

Of course...in hindsight he throws the ball to McKnight...but on such a quick strike play its extremely difficult to read second option there....especially when everyone is practically running the same route.

Interesting take...that sounds like it should be an easier read. They were only 5 yards apart on the same side of the field and 1 had 2 defenders all over him and another had one 7 yards away. Its not like he had to really scan the field. It was all right there in front of him, with plenty of time, and he picked the wrong guy.

[Matt39]

Interesting take...that sounds like it should be an easier read. They were only 5 yards apart on the same side of the field and 1 had 2 defenders all over him and another had one 7 yards away. Its not like he had to really scan the field. It was all right there in front of him, with plenty of time, and he picked the wrong guy.

I mean, maybe I'm crazy- but I dont know if McKnight is really the first read there, especially since he'd never even played wide out.

I get you want Sachez to go through progressions there, but the play wasn't intended for him to do that....3 step and throw.

[JohnnyHector]

How is Sanchez supposed to recognize the coverage there? Its a 3 step, first read and throw play. This isn't a progression throw.

Of course it's a progression throw. Sanchez's job pre-snap is to try to identify the coverage the defense is in, which he should be able to confirm on the snap when he sees the corners dropping back. If they're playing 1/3's, then the weakside flat/outside curl is what's going to be open, not the middle of the field which is being blanketed by 4 defenders.

[Matt39]

Of course it's a progression throw. Sanchez's job pre-snap is to try to identify the coverage the defense is in, which he should be able to confirm on the snap when he sees the corners dropping back. If they're playing 1/3's, then the weakside flat/outside curl is what's going to be open, not the middle of the field which is being blanketed by 4 defenders.

Its a 3 step drop and immediate throw, each player is running the same pattern. What exactly is his progression there?

Its not as if he could have said- ok well he isnt open so I'll throw it to my second read running this other pattern.

[JohnnyHector]

I mean, maybe I'm crazy- but I dont know if McKnight is really the first read there, especially since he'd never even played wide out. I get you want Sachez to go through progressions there, but the play wasn't intended for him to do that....3 step and throw.

Let's simply this and cut the field in half, assuming he's going weakside all along. All Sanchez needs to see is McCourty dropping back to know that McKnight is the correct read. If he can't fit Kerley, McKnight, McCourty, and Ihedigbo/Spikes into his field of vision there, then we need to hire a team optometrist.

[The Crusher]

First of all when Sanchez turned to the right side of the field The RT and LE were right in his throwing lane with McKnight so Im not sure WTF your talking about...... as he was making the throw (to Kerley) they were out of his field of view, yes, but it was too late at that point. My point on the play failing was not how you make it look and you know it JIF so stop with the crap already..... to even mention that I think Shotty designes plays to fail on purpose is almost as ridiculous of accusing him of that.

It's his job to find the open receiver. Stop with the excuses dude.

[Matt39]

Let's simply this and cut the field in half, assuming he's going weakside all along. All Sanchez needs to see is McCourty dropping back to know that McKnight is the correct read. If he can't fit Kerley, McKnight, McCourty, and Ihedigbo/Spikes into his field of vision there, then we need to hire a team optometrist.

Well then we disagree on the capability of a QB there to be able to make that read on such a quick strike play.

[JohnnyHector]

Its a 3 step drop and immediate throw, each player is running the same pattern. What exactly is his progression there? Its not as if he could have said- ok well he isnt open so I'll throw it to my second read running this other pattern.

Both receivers should be in his field of vision... it's not as if he needed to look across the field to find McKnight.

[JohnnyHector]

Well then we disagree on the capability of a QB there to be able to make that read on such a quick strike play.

No, we are in agreement that this particular QB lacks the capacity to make that read on such a quick strike play.

[JustInFudge]

I mean, maybe I'm crazy- but I dont know if McKnight is really the first read there, especially since he'd never even played wide out.

I get you want Sachez to go through progressions there, but the play wasn't intended for him to do that....3 step and throw.

Hector is pretty much saying everything I'm thinking here...but really, its just as simple as saying how hard is it to slow down for a half a second more and realize that McKnight had a much better shot at picking up the first.

Either way, the overall problem here is, Mark Sanchez is a one read Qb who cant think outside the box to find an open receiver that might not be his first read/primary target. We've seen it at least 20 times this season.

[Matt39]

No, we are in agreement that this particular QB lacks the capacity to make that read on such a quick strike play.

How many reads do you think Sanchez should be able to make on this particular play?

[Smashmouth]

It's his job to find the open receiver. Stop with the excuses dude.

Its not an excuse its what I see on the Play. It takes a split second for a QB to go from one WR to another if in that split second his view was obstucted with Mcknight then he would have never seen the cushion. Also on the Kerley play im not sure QB;s are supposed to have such great depth perception did he expect his WR's to be at the first down marker so on any completion he gets a first down ?? The QB is not supposed to make every thing work, and from what weve seen in the years Shooty has been here how many times do our WR's NOT run to the markers ? This cant be by design right ? Of course not but we keep seeing the same thing year in and year out. So the QB got the ball to his receiver who should have been at the first down marker yet were discussing and having to defend the QB ?

[JohnnyHector]

How many reads do you think Sanchez should be able to make on this particular play?

I think that it is within reason to expect an NFL QB to determine which of two receivers, standing 5 yards apart within his field of vision, is open and which is covered (or double-covered).

[JohnnyHector]

Its not an excuse its what I see on the Play. It takes a split second for a QB to go from one WR to another if in that split second his view was obstucted with Mcknight then he would have never seen the cushion. Also on the Kerley play im not sure QB;s are supposed to have such great depth perception did he expect his WR's to be at the first down marker so on any completion he gets a first down. The QB is not supposed to make every thing work and from what weve seen in the years Shooty has been here how many times do our WR's NOT run to the markers ? This cant be by design right ? Of course not but we keep seeing the same thing year in and year out. So the QB got the ball to his receiver who should have been at the first down marker yet were discussing nad having to defend the QB ?

If Edwards was still here to spring Kerley with one of his downfield blocks, this entire thread would be moot.

[Bleedin Green]

After all of this time are there really people that are so obsessed with their hatred for Sanchez that they can't admit this is one of the dumbest ******* play designs imaginable? I mean, that's really not a point of debate. It just is. I really don't give a crap who rambles on with their over-inflated sense of self worth to tell us how much smarter they are and why it's not, that just makes them even more wrong. This is not even a point of opinion when it gets to this point, there's absolutely zero evidence that suggests anything other than the fact that it's completely ******* stupid.

Does that make it so that Sanchez doesn't suck? No, so get over it already. Schotty can be a ******* moron and Sanchez still suck. It will all be ok, I promise.

[Smashmouth]

If Edwards was still here to spring Kerley with one of his downfield blocks, this entire thread would be moot.

Do you believe that designed curl routes were supposed to end in the WR being 2 yards before the sticks ? On a curl route a players momentum is taking him away from the first down so common sense tells you they should be at the marker when the curl is completed.

I guess in the world where we blame the QB for everything Jets WR's dont need to run to the sticks like everyone else does.

[Smashmouth]

After all of this time are there really people that are so obsessed with their hatred for Sanchez that they can't admit this is one of the dumbest ******* play designs imaginable? I mean, that's really not a point of debate. It just is. I really don't give a crap who rambles on with their over-inflated sense of self worth to tell us how much smarter they are and why it's not, that just makes them even more wrong. This is not even a point of opinion when it gets to this point, there's absolutely zero evidence that suggests anything other than the fact that it's completely ******* stupid.

Does that make it so that Sanchez doesn't suck? No, so get over it already. Schotty can be a ******* moron and Sanchez still suck. It will all be ok, I promise.

yay common sense finally

[JohnnyHector]

Do you believe that designed curl routes were supposed to end in the WR being 2 yards before the sticks ? On a curl route a players momentum is taking him away from the first down so common sense tells you they should be at the marker when the curl is completed.

I guess in the world where blame the QB for everything WR's dont need to run to the sticks like everyone else does.

You do realize that it's not a secret where the 1st down marker is, right? The defense is also aware of this fact and is going to scheme accordingly.

The Pats are in a cover 3, a scheme in which the defense is exposed to short, timed routes to the outside. When McKnight comes back on the curl, he's 2 yards short of the marker, his momentum fully stopped, and the outside defender (McCourty) is 7 yards deep. A decent throw and he's easily converting there.

I don't think Schotty is a good coordinator, but the play was there in this case... the execution was lacking.

[JohnnyHector]

there's absolutely zero evidence that suggests anything other than the fact that it's completely ******* stupid.

[Bleedin Green]

It is possible for both Schotty and Sanchez to suck. I don't think it's crazy to call that a poorly designed play on a 3rd and manageable. This isn't a progression throw.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

I was one of the biggest Chad haters in the world but I was never stupid enough to think that somehow made Herm, Hackett, Mangini or Schotty good coaches. It's really rather sad. I guess some fans are so desperate to see the success of this team, they want to convince themselves only one person involved with the entire team is a problem so that it can all be magically fixed with one move. Granted they are completely wrong, but I guess it makes them feel better.

[JohnnyHector]

Winner winner chicken dinner.

I was one of the biggest Chad haters in the world but I was never stupid enough to think that somehow made Herm, Hackett, Mangini or Schotty good coaches. It's really rather sad. I guess some fans are so desperate to see the success of this team, they want to convince themselves only one person involved with the entire team is a problem so that it can all be magically fixed with one move. Granted they are completely wrong, but I guess it makes them feel better.

Look, I think Schotty is a subpar offensive coordinator overall, but that doesn't mean that every single play that doesn't work is a bad decision on his part.

Defending him on one playcall (on which Sanchez missed a wide open receiver) does not an apologist make.

[Bleedin Green]

You should be banned from ever watching, discussing or even touching a football again for trying to make such a comparison.

[JohnnyHector]

You should be banned from ever watching, discussing or even touching a football again for trying to make such a comparison.

Clearly, you missed the point. You're lambasting a play that was an integral part of the man's offense.

[Bleedin Green]

Look, I think Schotty is a subpar offensive coordinator overall, but that doesn't mean that every single play that doesn't work is a bad decision on his part.

Defending him on one playcall (on which Sanchez missed a wide open receiver) does not an apologist make.

While you may not fall into this group, there has been a recent onslaught of Schotty defenders amongst those so desperate to blame Sanchez for all of the Jets woes. While I think there's been a number of times where the playcall was just fine and Sanchez completely blew it throughout the season, trying to classify this as one of those instances is a tad excessive.

Keep in mind, I do actually agree that there was a chance of the play succeeding, but that doesn't mean it wasn't idiotic. Only 1 of 5 reads had a chance of possiblygetting a first, and that involved one DB playing way too far off in coverage and would have also needed to have another DB failing to make a tackle he absolutely would have had a chance to make (which we don't know if he would have). Could it have happened? Sure, still doesn't make it smart. We've all seen QBs throw into triple coverage and get a TD out of it, that doesn't mean the read wasn't moronic.

Justifying decisions based on results is a horrible tactic to begin with, justifiying actions based on potential results is plain laughable.

[The Crusher]

Its not an excuse its what I see on the Play. It takes a split second for a QB to go from one WR to another if in that split second his view was obstucted with Mcknight then he would have never seen the cushion. Also on the Kerley play im not sure QB;s are supposed to have such great depth perception did he expect his WR's to be at the first down marker so on any completion he gets a first down ?? The QB is not supposed to make every thing work, and from what weve seen in the years Shooty has been here how many times do our WR's NOT run to the markers ? This cant be by design right ? Of course not but we keep seeing the same thing year in and year out. So the QB got the ball to his receiver who should have been at the first down marker yet were discussing and having to defend the QB ?

I appreciate that but at the same time one receiver had two Patriots by him the other had one Patriot and the sideline by him. Not freakin rocket science. Throw the damn ball where their is less Patriots. The play was their, Sanchez already knew where he wanted to throw the ball and it was into double coverage. He stinks.

[Bleedin Green]

Clearly, you missed the point. You're lambasting a play that was an integral part of the man's offense.

Even if I conceded that a 5-wide set on 3rd and short that saw every single receiver pull up short of the first down was the exact play-call he so frequently used (which I don't), that still doesn't justify Schotty's use of it. Remember, the down and distance make all the difference in the world of how good or bad of a call this is. Besides that, not only is this not even the same NFL as the one Walsh coached in, but would you like to start comparing the personnel involved in each offense? Granted I know Schotty has never once designed his offensive play-calls around his personnel, but news flash, that's no ******* excuse, that's one on the long list of his complete failures.

[The Crusher]

After all of this time are there really people that are so obsessed with their hatred for Sanchez that they can't admit this is one of the dumbest ******* play designs imaginable? I mean, that's really not a point of debate. It just is. I really don't give a crap who rambles on with their over-inflated sense of self worth to tell us how much smarter they are and why it's not, that just makes them even more wrong. This is not even a point of opinion when it gets to this point, there's absolutely zero evidence that suggests anything other than the fact that it's completely ******* stupid.

Does that make it so that Sanchez doesn't suck? No, so get over it already. Schotty can be a ******* moron and Sanchez still suck. It will all be ok, I promise.

You suck.

[JohnnyHector]

While you may not fall into this group, there has been a recent onslaught of Schotty defenders amongst those so desperate to blame Sanchez for all of the Jets woes. While I think there's been a number of times where the playcall was just fine and Sanchez completely blew it throughout the season, trying to classify this as one of those instances is a tad excessive.

Keep in mind, I do actually agree that there was a chance of the play succeeding, but that doesn't mean it wasn't idiotic. Only 1 of 5 reads had a chance of possiblygetting a first, and that involved one DB playing way too far off in coverage and would have also needed to have another DB failing to make a tackle he absolutely would have had a chance to make (which we don't know if he would have). Could it have happened? Sure, still doesn't make it smart. We've all seen QBs throw into triple coverage and get a TD out of it, that doesn't mean the read wasn't moronic.

Last I checked, you can only throw to 1 receiver per play. Who cares how many are open?

The design of the play is to stretch the defense horizontally so that someone is going to be open based on the coverage employed.. Given the cover 3 the Pats were in, there was only one read in this case, which is the receiver on the outside or flat. The whole idea of going empty in this case is to keep the LB'ers out of the flat and in the middle of the field so that he comes open on the outside. It's not dumb luck that McKnight comes open because McCourty is "playing way too far off in coverage"... they're in a zone and he's covering that 1/3 deep. Once McKnight catches the ball, you're looking at McCourty having to run 5+ yards and make a tackle before McKnight can turn and pick up 2, or Ihedigbo running ~5 yards to make a stop. I'd say a decent throw makes a conversation pretty likely there.

Justifying decisions based on results is a horrible tactic to begin with, justifiying actions based on potential results is plain laughable.

Umm, isn't that what every playcall in football (or any sport for that matter) is predicated on? The potential results based on everyone doing their job correctly.

[JohnnyHector]

Even if I conceded that a 5-wide set on 3rd and short that saw every single receiver pull up short of the first down was the exact play-call he so frequently used (which I don't), that still doesn't justify Schotty's use of it. Remember, the down and distance make all the difference in the world of how good or bad of a call this is. Besides that, not only is this not even the same NFL as the one Walsh coached in, but would you like to start comparing the personnel involved in each offense? Granted I know Schotty has never once designed his offensive play-calls around his personnel, but news flash, that's no ******* excuse, that's one on the long list of his complete failures.

It was 3rd and 6... not sure I would call that "3rd and short". As was asked by dbatesman earlier in this thread, please provide a more suitable playcall, given the down, distance, and opponent. Since we're both against using results-oriented analysis, even if McKnight picks up the 1st there, it was a terrible call in your opinion, no?

I suppose at this point, we can term any play that requires Sanchez to make a decision to be, in your words, "completely ******* stupid." I'll buy that.

[Bleedin Green]

Umm, isn't that what every playcall in football (or any sport for that matter) is predicated on? The potential results based on everyone doing their job correctly.

That's what most playcalls are predicated on, but not this one, which is the whole point. It's one thing to evaluate based on the potential success of your players, it's another entirely to base it on the failure of the defense to perform simple tasks.

This play is based on everyone on offense doing their job correctly AND the defense failing to do their jobs correctly. It's that second point which makes this whole argument is ridiculous, because even if the ball went to McKnight the success is all dependent on things outside of the control of anyone associated with the Jets. The design of this play is such that even if every offensive player performed their duty to perfection, it could still easily fail miserably based on nothing more than a mediocre performance by one or two players on the opposition. By that logic you might as well run it up the gut every play and say "well the play was designed around the idea that all 11 defensive players would fall down at the snap, it's not my fault that didn't happen".

It seems you might as well close your eyes and point to a play on the call-sheet, because with these arguments made here, apparently the call has absolutely no bearing on the results. After all, as long as the offense is perfect and every defender fails to do their job, every play should succeed, right? The good news is at least that's only more reason to support Schotty getting fired, since his job is obviously useless.

[Bleedin Green]

It was 3rd and 6... not sure I would call that "3rd and short". As was asked by dbatesman earlier in this thread, please provide a more suitable playcall, given the down, distance, and opponent. Since we're both against using results-oriented analysis, even if McKnight picks up the 1st there, it was a terrible call in your opinion, no?

I suppose at this point, we can term any play that requires Sanchez to make a decision to be, in your words, "completely ******* stupid." I'll buy that.

I actually think I would concede to that point.

[Larz]

what a waste of good protection

oy

[GimmeShelter]

What, its not better to throw it to the guy thats double covered?

Agree. While a horrible play design, Mark stil made the worst possibe decision. McKnight or the receiver at the top of the screen were much better choices.

[ZachEY]

It is possible for both Schotty and Sanchez to suck. I don't think it's crazy to call that a poorly designed play on a 3rd and manageable. This isn't a progression throw.

They both do suck. That's pretty clear. The problem lies in the fact that when a play doesn't work out, it's automatically Schotty's fault, but when they do, it's 'Sanchez Flashing'.

There were other plays that could have been called there, but if Sanchez hit a wide open McKnight, running this exact play, this thread doesn't exist.