Ryan Confirms RB By committee Approach

[JetNation]

In what wasn’t much of a surprise to Jets fans, head coach Rex Ryan announced that the team plans to utilize three running backs this season. Ryan acknowledged that there will be times when the Jets may go with the hot hand, “sure, that’s a possibility too” said Ryan according to ESPN.com’s Rich Cimini.

It’s hard to imagine the Jets going with any other approach at this point. They have three very capable backs in Chris Johnson, Chris Ivory, and Bilal Powell.  Some may even argue that St. Louis Rams castoff Darly Richardson should be in the picture.  Richardson averaged 4.8 YPC as a rookie two years ago to go along with 163 receiving yards on 24 catches, but saw a drop in production in coordiantor Brian Schottenheimer’s offense.

Given Johnson’s high mileage and Ivory’s injury history, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the Jets to find a way to keep a fourth RB.

 

 

View the full article

[neckdemon]

a player saw a drop-off in production in b.schitty's offense? no way!

[Sperm Edwards]

a player saw a drop-off in production in b.schitty's offense? no way!

Not that I'm any type of fan of Schottenheimer's, but St. Louis has no RB problems. His drop in production could be for many reasons, not the least of which was the emergence of Zac Stacy who did just fine under he same OC. Also Bradford (when on the field) got a whole lot better with BS's arrival, even in the absence of any great (or very good) wepponz.

[#27TheDominator]

a player saw a drop-off in production in b.schitty's offense? no way!

 

 

Not that I'm any type of fan of Schottenheimer's, but St. Louis has no RB problems. His drop in production could be for many reasons, not the least of which was the emergence of Zac Stacy who did just fine under he same OC. Also Bradford (when on the field) got a whole lot better with BS's arrival, even in the absence of any great (or very good) wepponz.

 

It's worse than that.  Guy coached for the Jets, so we throw his name in.  Richardson was only on the Rams from 2012.  Schottenheimer was the only NFL OC he ever had.  In 2012 he was a surprise contributor as a 7th round pick.   He passed Pead on the depth chart and averaged almost 5 ypc.  They let Jackson walk and expected him to get major carries. He suffered from turf toe issues, he missed about half the year and was limited for most.  RIchardson lost his job to Zac Stacy. The Rams whole rushing offense took a step back.  They team ypc only dropped a tenth, 4.2 to 4.1, but that was because Geno's old weapnz, Bailey and Austin, got  185 on 11 carries.  Without those 2, they averaged 3.7 as a team.

[New York Mick]

Enough talk start the ******* season already.

[Sperm Edwards]

Enough talk start the ******* season already.

 

Know what? Since this is within my control I'll grant you this wish and do just that.

 

That's one you owe me.

[Integrity28]

Not that I'm any type of fan of Schottenheimer's, but St. Louis has no RB problems. His drop in production could be for many reasons, not the least of which was the emergence of Zac Stacy who did just fine under he same OC. Also Bradford (when on the field) got a whole lot better with BS's arrival, even in the absence of any great (or very good) wepponz.

 

I think Fisher made him cut out a lot of the pre-snap bullsh*t and align to his philosophies around running the football. 

[Bleedin Green]

I think Fisher made him cut out a lot of the pre-snap bullsh*t and align to his philosophies around running the football. 

 

Do you mean to tell me that they DON'T line their FB out wide?  Oh the horror.

[New York Mick]

Know what? Since this is within my control I'll grant you this wish and do just that.

That's one you owe me.

Chop chop

[RutgersJetFan]

I think Fisher made him cut out a lot of the pre-snap bullsh*t and align to his philosophies around running the football. 

 

Head coaches can do that? No sh*t.

[Integrity28]

Do you mean to tell me that they DON'T line their FB out wide?  Oh the horror.

 

lol

 

Head coaches can do that? No sh*t.

 

Revolutionary.

[Sperm Edwards]

I think Fisher made him cut out a lot of the pre-snap bullsh*t and align to his philosophies around running the football. 

 

So Chip Kelly has overtaken him as the leader of pre-snap movement/motion/shifting?

[RutgersJetFan]

So Chip Kelly has overtaken him as the leader of pre-snap movement/motion/shifting?

I think the difference is that when Chip Kelly does it, it isn't so he can run a double reverse through a fullback.

[Sperm Edwards]

I think the difference is that when Chip Kelly does it, it isn't so he can run a double reverse through a fullback.

 

Or that it generally tends to work only on bad defenses or when the QB puts up numbers he'll never again repeat.

 

It's probably coming off as criticism of Kelly's offense, and it shouldn't since I think he does a good job on that side of the ball. But when he's getting credit for being the best offensive mind in the game (by some here) for beating up weaklings, it's a bit much.  Then again, I long for the time when a Jets offense does even that.

[Integrity28]

So Chip Kelly has overtaken him as the leader of pre-snap movement/motion/shifting?

 

Perhaps.

[Integrity28]

I think the difference is that when Chip Kelly does it, it isn't so he can run a double reverse through a fullback.

 

Or a ******* draw play that results in a 2 yard loss.

[Integrity28]

Or that it generally tends to work only on bad defenses or when the QB puts up numbers he'll never again repeat.

 

It's probably coming off as criticism of Kelly's offense, and it shouldn't since I think he does a good job on that side of the ball. But when he's getting credit for being the best offensive mind in the game (by some here) for beating up weaklings, it's a bit much.  Then again, I long for the time when a Jets offense does even that.

 

I'm with you.

 

The only things Kelly is doing that I find intriguing are his incorporation of science and nutrition in the prep and conditioning regimen, and the fact that he does have his offense disciplined enough to run more plays. Running more plays alone is going to lead to more offensive production more often than not, regardless of whether what you are doing in those plays is 'better' so to speak. It's just basic math... if Team A runs 10 plays and Team B runs 4, then Team A is more often than not going to have better numbers at the end of the game.

 

Only in the NFL is something this elementary treated as a novel concept. 

[RutgersJetFan]

Or that it generally tends to work only on bad defenses or when the QB puts up numbers he'll never again repeat.

It's probably coming off as criticism of Kelly's offense, and it shouldn't since I think he does a good job on that side of the ball. But when he's getting credit for being the best offensive mind in the game (by some here) for beating up weaklings, it's a bit much. Then again, I long for the time when a Jets offense does even that.

'Twas a joke, Tolstoy.

[CTM]

I'm with you.

 

The only things Kelly is doing that I find intriguing are his incorporation of science and nutrition in the prep and conditioning regimen, and the fact that he does have his offense disciplined enough to run more plays. Running more plays alone is going to lead to more offensive production more often than not, regardless of whether what you are doing in those plays is 'better' so to speak. It's just basic math... if Team A runs 10 plays and Team B runs 4, then Team A is more often than not going to have better numbers at the end of the game.

 

Only in the NFL is something this elementary treated as a novel concept. 

 

 

what?

[Integrity28]

what?

 

Here, this should clear it up...

 

If noodle dancing hippie doosh hits on 57 fat chicks in 1 hour, while JIF hits on only 11 per hour. More often than not the noodle dancer is going to score more hairy bush.

 

Where this formula breaks down is if you substitute Ape for JIF, Ape has a 100% close rate and breaks the formula. Also JIF is fagola.

[CTM]

Here, this should clear it up...

 

If noodle dancing hippie doosh hits on 57 fat chicks in 1 hour, while JIF hits on only 11 per hour. More often than not the noodle dancer is going to score more hairy bush.

 

Where this formula breaks down is if you substitute Ape for JIF, Ape has a 100% close rate and breaks the formula. Also JIF is fagola.

 

 

You can't run more plays if you don't convert first downs and don't stop long drives on defense. The only other way to influence it is to run hurry up , but that is not a new concept. 

[#27TheDominator]

what?

 

+1

[Integrity28]

You can't run more plays if you don't convert first downs and don't stop long drives on defense. The only other way to influence it is to run hurry up , but that is not a new concept. 

 

Trust me, I'm right.

[The Crusher]

Here, this should clear it up...

 

If noodle dancing hippie doosh hits on 57 fat chicks in 1 hour, while JIF hits on only 11 per hour. More often than not the noodle dancer is going to score more hairy bush.

 

Where this formula breaks down is if you substitute Ape for JIF, Ape has a 100% close rate and breaks the formula. Also JIF is fagola.

 

Best math ever!!

[Larz]

as long as they stay with the hot hand, and not stick to some script, I'm cool with it

[Bugg]

Here, this should clear it up...

 

If noodle dancing hippie doosh hits on 57 fat chicks in 1 hour, while JIF hits on only 11 per hour. More often than not the noodle dancer is going to score more hairy bush.

 

Where this formula breaks down is if you substitute Ape for JIF, Ape has a 100% close rate and breaks the formula. Also JIF is fagola.

Some here are not big fans of this math stuff.It's hard, and may even be a little gay. 

[Integrity28]

Some here are not big fans of this math stuff.It's hard, and may even be a little gay. 

 

This would explain why CTM is drawn to it like a moth to a flame.

[Sperm Edwards]

I'm with you.

 

The only things Kelly is doing that I find intriguing are his incorporation of science and nutrition in the prep and conditioning regimen, and the fact that he does have his offense disciplined enough to run more plays. Running more plays alone is going to lead to more offensive production more often than not, regardless of whether what you are doing in those plays is 'better' so to speak. It's just basic math... if Team A runs 10 plays and Team B runs 4, then Team A is more often than not going to have better numbers at the end of the game.

 

Only in the NFL is something this elementary treated as a novel concept. 

 

I have to confess I don't understand your running more plays thing either.  There is no such correlation between more plays and better numbers.

[Integrity28]

I have to confess I don't understand your running more plays thing either.  There is no such correlation between more plays and better numbers.

 

I know. I like to say dumb sh*t, make it sound very believable and then see who agrees and disagrees. 

 

[slats]

I have to confess I don't understand your running more plays thing either.  There is no such correlation between more plays and better numbers.

You'd potentially improve your total plays number.

[Sperm Edwards]

You'd potentially improve your total plays number.

 

Yeah, I still don't get it. I don't see any correlation between running more plays and the numbers being better. Some numbers may be higher but that doesn't necessarily mean better. Like a bad QB who throws more passes may throw for more yards, and even more TDs, but he will also throw more incomplete passes and more interceptions. 

 

There were good offenses at the top of the list and bottom of the list of who ran the most plays. Likewise, there were terrible offenses also at the top and bottom of those lists. I was looking last night. I think of the 5 teams who ran the fewest plays, 3 of them were in the top 10 in scoring points and a 4th (San Fran) was 11th. Conversely, two of the top 5 teams (in number of plays run) were Washington and Buffalo.

 

If you're good or bad, you're good or bad. 

 

Also, Philadelphia ran the 13th-most plays I think it was. Right around the mean # run in the league (think it was less than 1 more play per game from the mean). So if it's a reason why an offense is better, it wouldn't apply to Philadelphia.

[slats]

Yeah, I still don't get it. I don't see any correlation between running more plays and the numbers being better. Some numbers may be higher but that doesn't necessarily mean better. Like a bad QB who throws more passes may throw for more yards, and even more TDs, but he will also throw more incomplete passes and more interceptions. 

 

There were good offenses at the top of the list and bottom of the list of who ran the most plays. Likewise, there were terrible offenses also at the top and bottom of those lists. I was looking last night. I think of the 5 teams who ran the fewest plays, 3 of them were in the top 10 in scoring points and a 4th (San Fran) was 11th. Conversely, two of the top 5 teams (in number of plays run) were Washington and Buffalo.

 

If you're good or bad, you're good or bad. 

 

Also, Philadelphia ran the 13th-most plays I think it was. Right around the mean # run in the league (think it was less than 1 more play per game from the mean). So if it's a reason why an offense is better, it wouldn't apply to Philadelphia.

Lol, I was joking.

<insert four paragraphs here>

[Sperm Edwards]

Lol, I was joking.

<insert four paragraphs here>

If i didn't enjoy writing more i guess this would bother me. Instead I'm thankful.