You play to your strength....so why aren't we?

[Warfish]

We have a solid O-line.

 

We have a trio of strong, durable, workhorse running backs.

 

We have a bruiser of a FB.

 

We have a trio of decent TE's, both blocking and catching.

 

We only have two worthwhile WR's (Decker and Kerley).

 

We have no QB.

 

 

So.....

 

 

If this is what we got, why aren't we making the most of it?  Why are we running so hit-and-miss?  Run works, we dump it.  Run is stopped for a play, we dump it. 

 

Why are we feeding one RB over and over, instead of rotating fresh backs in every play, bam Ivory, bam Powell, bam Johnson?

 

Our QB lacks accuracy and vision?  Ok.  Why not faster, shorter routes to sure-handed TE's?  Why no play action?  Why so few screens and only at such obvious times? 

 

We are built to be a power running, short-passing team who must Dink-&-Penningdunk our way down the field, kill the clock, and win games in a grinding slow way.

 

Yet in the red zone we go pass-happy (and turnover happy!), we dont rotate RB's much at all, Powell (who is a solid runner) hasn't seen the field, we rarely run "power sets" with the FB lead blocking, and Cumberland is nowhere to be seen this year thus far.

 

Is it me.......or are we trying to run the wrong offense for our talent, the wrong offense for our Head Coach, and the wrong offense (most of all) for an inept, younger, turnover-prone, inaccurate QB???

 

I expect, with our talent, to be good in the Red Zone, to shove balls down throats.  Not to be amongst the worst in the NFL in the redzone, frankly.

 

Thats coaching.

[jgb]

because... nevermind, i have no answer to these questions.

[RutgersJetFan]

We do not have a solid o-line. The numbers were less than stellar going into yesterday and unless I am completely disabled, based on their performance yesterday it's only going down.

[Warfish]

We do not have a solid o-line. The numbers were less than stellar going into yesterday and unless I am completely disabled, based on their performance yesterday it's only going down.

 

They're vastly better at run-blocking than Geno Smith is at passing like a wanna-be Manning.

 

Our O-line is absolutely fine.  They look bad purely because of the QB they are trying to protect, who runs cluelessly in the backfield like a chump, and gets sacked or hit or fumbles or etc.

 

Five yards to gain, who do YOU trust?  Our O-line with those three RB behind, or Geno Smith tossing another pass five yards over the head of whomever he thinks he sees open downfield?

[JiFtheOracle]

Maybe I'm wrong...but pretty sure that was the game plan and they had 5 straight 3 and outs because the OL sucks, the TE's suck and they dont use the FB.  Then you're down 17-3 so that game plan is out the window.

 

Could be wrong but that first drive was all Ivory and short slants and they tried to duplicate the effort but couldnt.

[JetsFanInDenver]

We sure do like to cool our hot handed RB at that point of time by making him sit in the bench for stretches for some unknown reason.

[JetsFanInDenver]

Maybe I'm wrong...but pretty sure that was the game plan and they had 5 straight 3 and outs because the OL sucks, the TE's suck and they dont use the FB.  Then you're down 17-3 so that game plan is out the window.

 

Could be wrong but that first drive was all Ivory and short slants and they tried to duplicate the effort but couldnt.

 

I didnt see Ivory after the first drive till about the middle of the 2nd quarter.

[RutgersJetFan]

They're vastly better at run-blocking than Geno Smith is at passing like a wanna-be Manning.

 

Our O-line is absolutely fine.  They look bad purely because of the QB they are trying to protect, who runs cluelessly in the backfield like a chump, and gets sacked or hit or fumbles or etc.

 

Five yards to gain, who do YOU trust?  Our O-line with those three RB behind, or Geno Smith tossing another pass five yards over the head of whomever he thinks he sees open downfield?

 

You're arguing for replacement stats, which are adjusted for exactly what you are arguing for here. Jets were 16th in the run and 20th for passing going into yesterday's game. Unless the rest of the league stayed constant with that, those numbers are going down.

[Warfish]

You're arguing for replacement stats, which are adjusted for exactly what you are arguing for here. Jets were 16th in the run and 20th for passing going into yesterday's game. Unless the rest of the league stayed constant with that, those numbers are going down.

 

I'm not arguing stats.  Stats say the Jets D in what, top 5?  Please, we ALL know how bullsh*t those stats are.

 

I'm not arguing, really, IMO it's a given, we have far more talent at OL/RB/TE than we do at QB/WR.

 

We're built to run and eat clock and win (if we win) by 3 or 6.

 

And I damn sure trust the RB's more than Smith to avoid turnovers.

 

But I'll add, maybe if we ran some runs that were a LITTLE more complex than "Up the guy again, on two, hut!" we might also do better.

 

Play action.  Counter plays.  Toss plays.  ****, throw a god damn reverse in once in a while.

 

Our O knows two running plays.  Up the Gut, and Wildcat-for-a-Loss.

 

With this team, we should be top 5 in rusing in the NFL right now, and top 5 in TOP. 

[slats]

Yeah, I'm with everyone who isn't all that impressed with the Jets OL. And none of the TE's block. 

 

I do think they should stick with Ivory more, and spell him with Powell rather than Johnson, but I just don't see this team jamming the ball down their opposition's throats at will. 

 

And also, the GM wants to see if Geno is gonna develop or not. Mornhinweg could improve (a lot) with his play calling, but I'm sure Idzik wants to see them throw the ball. He did also sign an expensive (for him) FA WR, 

[RutgersJetFan]

I'm not arguing stats.  Stats say the Jets D in what, top 5?  Please, we ALL know how bullsh*t those stats are.

 

Not even close. Been fluctuating around the middle of the league. My guess is we'll probably be somewhere between 12-15 when the numbers come out midweek.

 

Conventional numbers may be bullsh*t. Efficiency numbers are certainly not.

[JiFtheOracle]

I didnt see Ivory after the first drive till about the middle of the 2nd quarter.

 

Well, the Jets only had 2 drives in the first quarter.  The first one, featured Ivory heavily.  The 2nd one he was in one the first 2 plays and they threw to him on first play and it was incomplete, go figure.  3 and out.

 

The following drive was CJ, 3 and out.  The next drive was Ivory and so was the next.  

 

So, no, he was heavily involved in every 3 and out other than the one CJ was in the game.  haha

[Warfish]

Not even close. Been fluctuating around the middle of the league. My guess is we'll probably be somewhere between 12-15 when the numbers come out midweek.

 

Conventional numbers may be bullsh*t. Efficiency numbers are certainly not.

 

Again, I'm not arguing numbers, I'm arguing what I see on the field, and what talent I know we have.

 

"Efficient" in some egghead wanna-be-Baseball-guru spreadsheet is one thing, watching the games is another.  We're not studying OBP quotients here.  It's football.

 

And in football, our passing game sucks, our WR sucks (mostly) and our QB, he sucks by far the most.

 

Our O-line (in run blocking), RB trio, and TE's do not suck.

 

If you have a "stat" that tells you the reverse is true, that we play to our strength by playing to the Geno Smith passing O.....well, that says alot about stats I guess.

[RutgersJetFan]

Again, I'm not arguing numbers, I'm arguing what I see on the field, and what talent I know we have.

 

"Efficient" in some egghead wanna-be-Baseball-guru spreadsheet is one thing, watching the games is another.  We're not studying OBP quotients here.  It's football.

 

And in football, our passing game sucks, our WR sucks (mostly) and our QB, he sucks by far the most.

 

Our O-line (in run blocking), RB trio, and TE's do not suck.

 

If you have a "stat" that tells you the reverse is true, that we play to our strength by playing to the Geno Smith passing O.....well, that says alot about stats I guess.

 

I never said they suck. I said they weren't solid. If you're too obtuse to acknowledge the strengths of regression analysis in a game that moves way too fast for your eyes to track, I don't know what to tell you.

[Warfish]

I never said they suck. I said they weren't solid. If you're too obtuse to acknowledge the strengths of regression analysis in a game that moves way too fast for your eyes to track, I don't know what to tell you.

 

Has nothing to do with being obtuse, Warden Norton.

 

 

If you think some spreadsheet says our O-line is not solid blokcing for the run, your spreadhseet are simply wrong.  More, if your spreadsheets say we should be a pass-first team, as opposed to a run-first team as I've suggested here as the primary point, your spreadsheets are sh*t and not worth the electrons used to produce them.

 

Baseball-nerd-wanna-be's should sod off back to obsessing over baseball minutia, where such statistical analysis might actually carry some meaningful weight.

 

Run more, and more diverse, do better.  Pass less and less risky (i.e. less Geno) do better.

 

Not rocket science, as much as you might want it to be Rutgers old sport.

[JiFtheOracle]

RJF is the smartest, most righteous, hippest, coolest, all knowing about everything poster the interwebz has ever seen, Warfish.  Back off!!!

[RutgersJetFan]

 

Has nothing to do with being obtuse, Warden Norton.

 

 

If you think some spreadsheet says our O-line is not solid blokcing for the run, your spreadhseet are simply wrong.  More, if your spreadsheets say we should be a pass-first team, as opposed to a run-first team as I've suggested here as the primary point, your spreadsheets are sh*t and not worth the electrons used to produce them.

 

Baseball-nerd-wanna-be's should sod off back to obsessing over baseball minutia, where such statistical analysis might actually carry some meaningful weight.

 

Run more, and more diverse, do better.  Pass less and less risky (i.e. less Geno) do better.

 

Not rocket science, as much as you might want it to be Rutgers old sport.

 

This is all bullsh*t narrative. No substance at all and the digs aren't even witty. Again, everything you are saying here, everything you are arguing for, is accounted for in FO stats. That you have no desire to acknowledge them is fine, but it doesn't change the notion that stomping your feet and yelling "YES THEY ARE," which is all you've been doing, isn't really much for dialogue. You'd have been better off just typing math is gay and I probably would have rep'd you and moved on.

[JiFtheOracle]

And funny!  Forgot funny! 

[dbatesman]

"OBP quotients"

[Matt39]

The oline stinks and Winters pretty much short circuits the entire unit.

[RutgersJetFan]

"OBP quotients"

 

[Warfish]

This is all bullsh*t narrative. No substance at all and the digs aren't even witty. Again, everything you are saying here, everything you are arguing for, is accounted for in FO stats. That you have no desire to acknowledge them is fine, but it doesn't change the notion that stomping your feet and yelling "YES THEY ARE," which is all you've been doing, isn't really much for dialogue. You'd have been better off just typing math is gay and I probably would have rep'd you and moved on.

So much anger than I won't bow to your (unlinked) spreadsheets, eh?

Take is how you like old friend, I know what I see, and it's a team that needs to run more, run a more diverse running game, and limit both their dogsh*t QB and their exposure to turnovers in the passing game.

And math isn't gay, I'm an accountant, I love math (and spreadsheets, I have more bloody spreadhseets than the eye can see). Be assured, I have a love and appreciation for numbers, and stats.

I just know numbers are not the answer to every question.

My OP basically says "run more". Your replies all along are nitpicking, obsessive-baseball-fan-style, that the O-line is apparently not rating as "solid" but is rated as "average".

Does that change the validity of my point Rutgers? Does an "average" O-line mean I'm wrong here, in my core point? Because far as I can see, you've yet to address the point of the thread at all.

/shrug.

[JiFtheOracle]

The oline stinks and Winters pretty much short circuits the entire unit.

 

I dont even think Winters had a penalty yesterday.  Breno had enough for everyone.

 

IMPROVEMENT!!!

[SAR I]

because... nevermind, i have no answer to these questions.

 

We are playing to our strength.

 

It's just not strong enough.

SAR I

[jgb]

 

We are playing to our strength.

 

It's just not strong enough.

SAR I

 

lol i like that. we're playing to our least glaring weaknesses.

[Warfish]

Since you mentioned FO Stats, I'll link some:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

This links says the Jets O-line is (apparently, unless I'm misreading it) above average in every Run-Blocking Category.

This, despite (IMO) a very predictable, non-diverse running game plan thus far in 2014, that has not made the most of it's RB talent.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb

Pretty much says that Geno Smith is the worst starting QB still starting in the NFL.

So I'll say again, IMO we should focus our O on a more diverse running game, adding in elements such as play action, counters and more, and use all three starting-quality RB's more.

We should limit the worst QB in the nFL (Smith), to a more sh*t-QB friendly short to midrange passing game, taking advantage of screens and safer slant and out timing routes to TE's with less risky passes and a focus on ball protection. Taking the occasional deep pass is fine, within reason, to keep the D honest.

IMO, thats playing to what little strength (or as SAR puts in, our least weak weakness) we have.

[BallinPB]

Up the gut with Ivory. That's playing to our strength

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk