Has "The Formula" worked before?

[Smashmouth]

We dont need someone to revolutiionize we need someone to have a freakin clue. Shotty is horrible at calling a football game and its painfully obvious. Calling reverses on the opposing teams 30 yardline just when your QB is getting into a rhythm is moronic. Passing the ball when your running at 6.0 yards a clip vs the Patriots is moronic for many reasons. Going a good portion of the season without running Screens while your QB gets raped by over agressive defenses is once again MORONIC. How much more need be said about this idiot and why cant people see this is putting a huge amount of stress on a young QB ? Im not sure how you can improve or continue to develop a QB under the circumstances of this season with all the issues we have had with both personell (o-line) and coaching. Shotty does not even do the most basic of things to pull some pressure off his QB the Raven game and the Patriot game were a disgrace and Im not sure how this **** still has a job after those debacles.

[Barton]

I honestly don't know the answer to this question, so I'm hoping someone can provide me some examples of successes, or, some clarity that there hasn't been any evidence of this:

1. Fire the Offensive Coordinator on a statistically poor offense

2. Keep the young, struggling QB

3. Offense and QB improves dramatically.

My opinion on Sanchez is well documented. As are the opinions on Schotty of the majority of Jets fans. Neither are relevant to this thread. What I'd like to know is, has the above happened and how often?

The 2007 Giants.....who fired their OC midseason......

[CTM]

Dude, Chad played 1 freakin' game under Dinger and blew out his shoulder. Kinda hard to point to that as an example.

in that one game he had like 8 turnovers.. lol

[JohnnyHector]

Yes, it worked with the Giants.

Coughlin stripped Hufnagel of playcalling duties, made him quite before canning him, and made Gilbride the OC. This happened before the SB season. Eli didn't have a great year in 2007, but he played well the following.

Gilbride became the OC in 2007, a season in which Eli was almost identical statistically to the year prior (though he did manage to lead the league in picks) and was actually worse in most categories than his first full year as a starter, save for a bump in completion percentage.

Given the fact that even an improvement in the first year with a new OC could be completely coincidental, how can you make a cogent argument that Gilbride deserves any credit for Eli making strides in his second season under a new coordinator? It could just as easily be argued that the improvements were the result of the Giants improved defensive play, the #1 ranked rushing offense, easier schedule, average field position, not having to deal with Shockey, etc.

I

[JohnnyHector]

The 2007 Giants.....who fired their OC midseason......

Pretty sure Hufnagel was unceremoniously stripped of playcalling duties late in the '06 season. Gilbride started '07 as the OC and Eli was no better during that regular season than the year prior.

[Matt39]

Should offensive coordinators never be fired? Hufnagel got fired for a reason, Eli has improved steadily....I mean it isnt out of the realm of possibilities that Schottenheimer is an issue. It's also strongly possible that nepotism has kept him around this long.

[Aten]

Yes, it worked with the Giants.

Coughlin stripped Hufnagel of playcalling duties, made him quite before canning him, and made Gilbride the OC. This happened before the SB season. Eli didn't have a great year in 2007, but he played well the following.

Hufnagel was fired near the end of the 2006 season when the Giants put up the 7th-highest offensive DVOA. The offense was significantly worse in 2007 (18th).

[CTM]

Hufnagel was fired near the end of the 2006 season when the Giants put up the 7th-highest offensive DVOA. The offense was significantly worse in 2007 (18th).

details....

boring

[SenorGato]

And playing 6 games against bottom 5-7 teams.. Yep.

I really enjoyed this conversation and I thank you for delivering both facts and high-larity.

[JohnnyHector]

Hufnagel was fired near the end of the 2006 season when the Giants put up the 7th-highest offensive DVOA. The offense was significantly worse in 2007 (18th).

But they were 3rd in 2008. Clearly this demonstrates that replacing Schottenheimer is the panacea for the Jets' offensive woes.

[Bleedin Green]

So just to recap: Schotty sucked before Sanchez, sucked with Sanchez and will suck after Sanchez. Sanchez sucked with Schotty and will suck after Schotty. Yet the debate seems to be which one doesn't deserve to be sh*t-canned because of the other sucking. Intriguing.

[JetsFanInDenver]

So just to recap: Schotty sucked before Sanchez, sucked with Sanchez and will suck after Sanchez. Sanchez sucked with Schotty and will suck after Schotty. Yet the debate seems to be which one doesn't deserve to be sh*t-canned because of the other sucking. Intriguing.

Not condoning Sachez's play here.

But we know Schotty has sucked with other QBs. But we do not know Sanchez has sucked with other OC's .

[RutgersJetFan]

But we do not know Sanchez has sucked with other OC's .

Right, but we do know that OC changes rarely result in bringing around QB's who are this bad.

[RutgersJetFan]

So just to recap: Schotty sucked before Sanchez, sucked with Sanchez and will suck after Sanchez. Sanchez sucked with Schotty and will suck after Schotty. Yet the debate seems to be which one doesn't deserve to be sh*t-canned because of the other sucking. Intriguing.

All arguments for both are based in potential, arguments against are based on results. All in all it just depends on how long one prefers to hold onto blind, stupid hope.

[SMC]

Hufnagel was fired near the end of the 2006 season when the Giants put up the 7th-highest offensive DVOA. The offense was significantly worse in 2007 (18th).

Uhm, that's why I said Eli didn't have a great 2007 and played well the following season (2008)

[JohnnyHector]

Uhm, that's why I said Eli didn't have a great 2007 and played well the following season (2008)

Which proves what, exactly?

[THE ILK]

What T0m said.

[SMC]

Gilbride became the OC in 2007, a season in which Eli was almost identical statistically to the year prior (though he did manage to lead the league in picks) and was actually worse in most categories than his first full year as a starter, save for a bump in completion percentage.

Given the fact that even an improvement in the first year with a new OC could be completely coincidental, how can you make a cogent argument that Gilbride deserves any credit for Eli making strides in his second season under a new coordinator? It could just as easily be argued that the improvements were the result of the Giants improved defensive play, the #1 ranked rushing offense, easier schedule, average field position, not having to deal with Shockey, etc.

I have no clue if Gilbride made a difference, but Eli did improve in 2008. Hufnagel was stripped of playcalling late in 2006 and Glibride took over in 2007. Eli didn't have a good yr in 2007, but did in 2008.

There are many different variables at play. Eli's improvement could have simply been natural maturation. Who knows.

The point is that the Giants answered EY's rhetorical question. The "formula" worked. But frankly, I think the question is stupid because there is no formula.

Schitty is a failure. He's proved it for 6 years. Heck, let's turn EY's question around:

1. Cut young, struggling QB

2. Keep Offensive Coordinator who has not had success with 4 quarterbacks.

3. Offense improves dramatically

How many more QBs does Schitty need to fail with before the Jets move on?

[SMC]

Which proves what, exactly?

It doesn't prove anything. It simple fits into EY's "formula," which doesn't exist anyway.

[ZachEY]

I have no clue if Gilbride made a difference, but Eli did improve in 2008. Hufnagel was stripped of playcalling late in 2006 and Glibride took over in 2007. Eli didn't have a good yr in 2007, but did in 2008.

There are many different variables at play. Eli's improvement could have simply been natural maturation. Who knows.

The point is that the Giants answered EY's rhetorical question. The "formula" worked. But frankly, I think the question is stupid because there is no formula.

Schitty is a failure. He's proved it for 6 years. Heck, let's turn EY's question around:

1. Cut young, struggling QB

2. Keep Offensive Coordinator who has not had success with 4 quarterbacks.

3. Offense improves dramatically

How many more QBs does Schitty need to fail with before the Jets move on?

I'm not saying that we should keep Schotty, because honestly, I don't care. Because, my point is, it's mostly irrelevant. I just don't think we get better until we get better at the QB position, be that through the drastic and mostly unprecedented improvement of Sanchez, or the bringing in of a new QB.

It's not about saying there's a specific formula to get better, but rather, that the idea that firing Schotty and bringing in someone new hasn't necessarily proven to work... Having a good QB has.

[SMC]

I'm not saying that we should keep Schotty, because honestly, I don't care. Because, my point is, it's mostly irrelevant. I just don't think we get better until we get better at the QB position, be that through the drastic and mostly unprecedented improvement of Sanchez, or the bringing in of a new QB.

It's not about saying there's a specific formula to get better, but rather, that the idea that firing Schotty and bringing in someone new hasn't necessarily proven to work... Having a good QB has.

Getting a better QB always works. It worked for the Saints. It worked with the Cardinals in Warner.

My point is that the Jets wouldn't be following a "formula" in firing Schitty, because regardless of Sanchez, Schitty has proved his worth in being fired.

We can't look at some dissimilar situation with a young QB and an OC getting canned and say, "Ah-hah! That offense wouldn't get getter so therefore we shouldn't make our own evaluation of the OC."

Again, look at my question. How many of those situations were where an OC failed with 4 QBs and been given a 5th to try to work?

[NYJets90]

I honestly don't know the answer to this question, so I'm hoping someone can provide me some examples of successes, or, some clarity that there hasn't been any evidence of this:

1. Fire the Offensive Coordinator on a statistically poor offense

2. Keep the young, struggling QB

3. Offense and QB improves dramatically.

My opinion on Sanchez is well documented. As are the opinions on Schotty of the majority of Jets fans. Neither are relevant to this thread. What I'd like to know is, has the above happened and how often?

Yes it has. After the 1990 season the Cowboys replaced Dave Shula with Norv Turner and it turned Aikman around.

[greeniemeanie]

I'm not saying that we should keep Schotty, because honestly, I don't care. Because, my point is, it's mostly irrelevant. I just don't think we get better until we get better at the QB position, be that through the drastic and mostly unprecedented improvement of Sanchez, or the bringing in of a new QB.

It's not about saying there's a specific formula to get better, but rather, that the idea that firing Schotty and bringing in someone new hasn't necessarily proven to work... Having a good QB has.

Too many holes in this premise.

First, QB's have had drastic improvements in the NFL over the course of their career. This is fact. Why they have improved is really hard to determine due to the many factors that may have contributed to the QB's overall improvement. Just for a small list of examples:

Vinny T

Steve Young

Drew Brees

Alex Smith, to a lesser degree

etc, etc

Second, based upon your logic, all coaching would make no difference whether it be the OC, DC, or Head Coach

Once again, there are many examples where coaching changed the success of a team. Just look at the impact Rex had here. Then look at what Harbaugh has done in San Fran, etc...

Third, your argument is really hard to prove because the question of what is considered "working" has to be answered first.

Do you base your argument on the statistics of the QB in terms of passing, turnovers, wins, team success, etc?

Quite simply, nothing that hasn't happened yet can be considered "proven". Only what has happened already can be used as a gauge to determine the probability of what MIGHT happen. While considering that, you must, even in your biased nature, succumb to the truth that the probability of Sanchez improving his play is much more likely to happen than the probability of it not happening.

Years and years of QB's who have improved over time dictate that to be true. The real question that remains unanswered is why they improve. Which in my opinion is moot. Schottenheimer, based upon your logic that the player only makes the coach, is the exact reason why your argument is faulty. Schottenheimer has had multiple QB's that have experienced some form of success greater without him than with him. If, indeed the player made the coach, then that trend would not exist.

Also, and my final point, I think we can agree that the state of the Jets offense is not good. So, the question is would the jets as a team be better served to try to change the one variable that they have not since 2006 (Schottenheimer), or continue to do the same thing over and over again (change the players) and expect a different result? Kind of seems insane to me, but to each their own, I suppose.

[Larz]

option 1 - fire shotty with 1 year remaining, which is just money out of woody's pocket

option 2 - keep shotty and release sanchez and have dead money on the cap and bring in a veteran (never any good ones available, would be looking at recycled jag) meaning less cap room to improve other areas of team

option 3 - get rid of them both and start over with dead money on the cap limiting the teams ability to improve other area's of the team

option 4 - fire shotty, keep sanchez, bring in a veteran to challenge him - tough to carry two legit QB's with the cap, would limit the teams ability to improve other areas of team

so it really doesn't matter even a little bit if it's worked before

the old addage goes, you can't fire all the players. so the coach takes the fall

[CTM]

option 5

Rex pray to good of feet that Manning is healthy, and tanny go all out for him

[Larz]

option 5

Rex pray to good of feet that Manning is healthy, and tanny go all out for him

I can't wait for his retirement press conference so you can move on from this, lol

[CTM]

I can't wait for his retirement press conference so you can move on from this, lol

You really think that will stop me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5ZAOIAK4BQ&feature=related

[Klecko73isGod]

I have no clue if Gilbride made a difference, but Eli did improve in 2008. Hufnagel was stripped of playcalling late in 2006 and Glibride took over in 2007. Eli didn't have a good yr in 2007, but did in 2008.

There are many different variables at play. Eli's improvement could have simply been natural maturation. Who knows.

The point is that the Giants answered EY's rhetorical question. The "formula" worked. But frankly, I think the question is stupid because there is no formula.

Schitty is a failure. He's proved it for 6 years. Heck, let's turn EY's question around:

1. Cut young, struggling QB

2. Keep Offensive Coordinator who has not had success with 4 quarterbacks.

3. Offense improves dramatically

How many more QBs does Schitty need to fail with before the Jets move on?

Wait, you mean QBs can mature and get better? They're not locked in to performing their entire career the way they did in their third season?

Stunning.

[The Crusher]

Right, but we do know that OC changes rarely result in bringing around QB's who are this bad.

You'll be seeing a lot of changes around here. Papa's got a brand new bag.

[The Crusher]

Wait, you mean QBs can mature and get better? They're not locked in to performing their entire career the way they did in their third season?

Stunning.

.Some actually get worse too.

[Klecko73isGod]

I'm not saying that we should keep Schotty, because honestly, I don't care. Because, my point is, it's mostly irrelevant. I just don't think we get better until we get better at the QB position, be that through the drastic and mostly unprecedented improvement of Sanchez, or the bringing in of a new QB.

It's not about saying there's a specific formula to get better, but rather, that the idea that firing Schotty and bringing in someone new hasn't necessarily proven to work... Having a good QB has.

But realizing that Sanchez isn't going anywhere for at least another year and more likely two, doesn't it make sense to change OCs and give it a try?

[ZachEY]

But realizing that Sanchez isn't going anywhere for at least another year and more likely two, doesn't it make sense to change OCs and give it a try?

Yeah. That's fine. Fire Schotty. I said they should do it during the 3 game losing streak.

The concept I'm trying to look at is if this move historically matters. There's not a lot of support that it does. We've got "maybe Eli" and maybe Troy Aikman 20 years ago.

I'd love a reason to believe that "it's the playcalling" is actually more than blind hope.

[ZachEY]

.Some actually get worse too.

My favorite argument. For every guy who makes dramatic improvement, there's 10 who suck to begin with, and keep sucking.

[Klecko73isGod]

Yeah. That's fine. Fire Schotty. I said they should do it during the 3 game losing streak.

The concept I'm trying to look at is if this move historically matters. There's not a lot of support that it does. We've got "maybe Eli" and maybe Troy Aikman 20 years ago.

I'd love a reason to believe that "it's the playcalling" is actually more than blind hope.

Wouldn't any move be blind hope though? Even getting Peyton Manning at this point would be blind hope - he's 35 and coming off a major injury which may cause his career to end. There's no guarantee he's the same guy if he comes back.

[RutgersJetFan]

You'll be seeing a lot of changes around here. Papa's got a brand new bag.

Well, think about me. This nose. This hair. This ridiculous chin.