Jump to content

Running the ball on 3rd and 5 with 2 minutes left up 3 points


Jetsbb

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, GreenFish said:

The Titans were crowding the line of scrimmage. It was almost impossible for us to run the ball in that situation. I thought at the time the right call was to pass the ball and try and win the game. We settled for FG time after time. Settling for FGs cost us the game.

A hallmark of a Todd Bowles football team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 hours ago, Jetsbb said:

What is the cost benefit analysis? Throwing the ball and converting wins you the game. The cost of not converting is they now have two timeouts instead of one. Does that make any difference though when they have plenty of time with one timeout only needing 3 to tie? Running the ball costs them a timeout but is useless since they have another timeout and only need a FG to tie. Would love to know the analytics percentage of how much greater your chances of winning are by throwing on third down vs running.

the problem is while it looks like the game was settled on one play, it's still only one play and you could look at how many times the team couldn't convert on 3rd and two or how the titans were able to make big pass plays before and after the failed 3rd and 5 try.  the bottom line is the jets didn't score any point.  they kicked 5 fg's.  imagine if they had scored just one td instead of kicking a fg?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

I remember talking to a friend of mine the other day and imagining a scenario where in the Jets last game of the season, we are tied in OT and with the ball on our own 20 yard line with 45 seconds left to play, we take 3 knees and the team carries Bowles off the field. 

You forgot the victory lap around the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bealeb319 said:

They could have also gotten the first down running the ball you are talking no risk vs some risk for nearly the same amount of reward this is a safe call not a fun call but it really shows how desperate out fan base is to blame the coaches for anything

Sent from my LGUS991 using JetNation.com mobile app
 

Lol no. Everyone and their mother knows how conservative and scared Todd bowles is in these situation. We do not have a OL obviously that can effectively run the ball when the D cord knows that 99 out of a 100 times bowles is running the ball with even a slim lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol no. Everyone and their mother knows how conservative and scared Todd bowles is in these situation. We do not have a OL obviously that can effectively run the ball when the D cord knows that 99 out of a 100 times bowles is running the ball with even a slim lead.
All I am saying is there are so many reasons to hate Bowles. Running the ball to burn time off the clock when your team has a lead is a bit of a stretch here.

Sent from my LGUS991 using JetNation.com mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jetsbb said:

What is the cost benefit analysis? Throwing the ball and converting wins you the game. The cost of not converting is they now have two timeouts instead of one. Does that make any difference though when they have plenty of time with one timeout only needing 3 to tie? Running the ball costs them a timeout but is useless since they have another timeout and only need a FG to tie. Would love to know the analytics percentage of how much greater your chances of winning are by throwing on third down vs running.

After 4 years of this it now needs another thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, bealeb319 said:

All I am saying is there are so many reasons to hate Bowles. Running the ball to burn time off the clock when your team has a lead is a bit of a stretch here.

Sent from my LGUS991 using JetNation.com mobile app
 

Lol I understand what you are saying.  but you are basically guaranteeing the opposing team will get the ball back.  A smart coach goes for the win there. We don’t have a smart coach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bealeb319 said:

From watching smart football coaches playing smart football it is more a rough estimate than a statistic think of it more as a figure of speech but when you watch year in and out you pick up a few things.

Sent from my LGUS991 using JetNation.com mobile app
 

Lol thought so. I think your math is a little off ? when you are only up by 3, the other team has been rolling your D, id say it closer to 8 out of 10 a HC passes the ball in that situation. Todd bowles runs it 9 out of 10 times there though ? Bowles is extremely conservative, predictable. I’d never helps to make the predictable call when the game is on the line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bealeb319 said:

From watching smart football coaches playing smart football it is more a rough estimate than a statistic think of it more as a figure of speech but when you watch year in and out you pick up a few things.

Sent from my LGUS991 using JetNation.com mobile app
 

Very apparent you have not been watching any patriots games the last decade. 10 out of 10 times he throws the ball there. I will bet any money you want on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bealeb319 said:

The bright side is we probably won't have to wait long to see as they are usually winning the game with two minutes left

Sent from my LGUS991 using JetNation.com mobile app
 

What the hell? No they are usually in a better position than up only 3 points with 2 minutes left and the other team having multiple timeouts. They do not run the ball on a makeable 3rd down that would seal the game in that situation ever. I can recall a game in my head against the Jets right now thinking about it where they iced the game on a third down pass up only 3 with a couple minutes left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, UntouchableCrew said:

But in a lost season why are you being conservative? Now is the time to open it up and wing it. Go for an onside kick. Go for it on fourth down. Let the rookie rip it. We have NOTHING TO LOSE, everything that matters is ALREADY LOST.

1

serious question how many Jets starters would no doubt start on other teams. 0 on offense, a handful on D (92, 33, 54 and sometimes 22)

followup question how many TD's did the Jets D score vs Tennessee vs the Jets O

The Jets put their defense on the field because even though there's a 1% chance of winning with a defensive TD there's like a 0% chance on offense right now. 

here are some real stats. 

the Jets have attempted 11 fourth downs this season, have made two 

there have been 3 onsides kicks recovered all season, for all teams

again, Bowles maybe can coach better but this obsession that it's all the coaches fault is bullcrap and even more it's cyclical.

like the olympics, leap year or Tom Shane getting laid It happens every few years.

the fanbase forgets there's no clay to mold and has this great need to fire the sculptor.  Mike McCarthy deserves to be fired because he's under utilizing the best qb in football. Todd Bowles has no resources to utilize beside Jason Myers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bitonti said:

serious question how many Jets starters would no doubt start on other teams. 0 on offense, a handful on D (92, 33, 54 and sometimes 22)

followup question how many TD's did the Jets D score vs Tennessee vs the Jets O

The Jets put their defense on the field because even though there's a 1% chance of winning with a defensive TD there's like a 0% chance on offense right now. 

here are some real stats. 

the Jets have attempted 11 fourth downs this season, have made two 

there have been 3 onsides kicks recovered all season, for all teams

again, Bowles maybe can coach better but this obsession that it's all the coaches fault is bullcrap and even more it's cyclical.

like the olympics, leap year or Tom Shane getting laid It happens every few years.

the fanbase forgets there's no clay to mold and has this great need to fire the sculptor.  Mike McCarthy deserves to be fired because he's under utilizing the best qb in football. Todd Bowles has no resources to utilize beside Jason Myers.

 

Agreed.  Even with the worst coaching on the face of the earth, good players can make plays and score points despite that.  3 offensive TDS in 5 games isn’t solely because of bad coaching.  This is the worst collection of offensive players in the league, and it isn’t even close.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, bitonti said:

serious question how many Jets starters would no doubt start on other teams. 0 on offense, a handful on D (92, 33, 54 and sometimes 22)

followup question how many TD's did the Jets D score vs Tennessee vs the Jets O

The Jets put their defense on the field because even though there's a 1% chance of winning with a defensive TD there's like a 0% chance on offense right now. 

here are some real stats. 

the Jets have attempted 11 fourth downs this season, have made two 

there have been 3 onsides kicks recovered all season, for all teams

 again, Bowles maybe can coach better but this obsession that it's all the coaches fault is bullcrap and even more it's cyclical.

like the olympics, leap year or Tom Shane getting laid It happens every few years.

the fanbase forgets there's no clay to mold and has this great need to fire the sculptor.  Mike McCarthy deserves to be fired because he's under utilizing the best qb in football. Todd Bowles has no resources to utilize beside Jason Myers.

 

I just don't believe this to be true. I'm sure a better coach could get more out of this offense because as recently as last year under John Morton the offense looked substantially better.

The roster is poor but instead of elevating them Bowles, Bates, and Rodgers are dragging them down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, UntouchableCrew said:

I just don't believe this to be true. I'm sure a better coach could get more out of this offense because as recently as last year under John Morton the offense looked substantially better.

The roster is poor but instead of elevating them Bowles, Bates, and Rodgers are dragging them down.

How much elevation can there be?  They were 5-11 last year.   You honestly think this is even a .500 team with another coach?  No way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

How much elevation can there be?  They were 5-11 last year.   You honestly think this is even a .500 team with another coach?  No way.  

The Bears were 5-11 last year. They were 29th in scoring offense, scoring fewer points than we do now. Amazingly a new coach (and Allen Robinson) has that group of JAGs winning lots of games.

The Rams were 4-12 in 2016, dead last in scoring with Goff and Gurley both on the roster. Amazingly, a new coach had a huge impact.

I think it's crazy to think a new coach couldn't get substantially more out of this offense than we're getting now. We unquestionably need to upgrade the talent but there's a reason why teams like the Eagles are trying to trade for Robby Anderson -- they know WTF they're doing and would get production from him. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, UntouchableCrew said:

The Bears were 5-11 last year. They were 29th in scoring offense, scoring fewer points than we do now. Amazingly a new coach (and Allen Robinson) has that group of JAGs winning lots of games.

The Rams were 4-12 in 2016, dead last in scoring with Goff and Gurley both on the roster. Amazingly, a new coach had a huge impact.

I think it's crazy to think a new coach couldn't get substantially more out of this offense than we're getting now. We unquestionably need to upgrade the talent but there's a reason why teams like the Eagles are trying to trade for Robby Anderson -- they know WTF they're doing and would get production from him. 

 

Stop, just stop with those comparisons.  The Jets don’t have anywhere near the level of talent those teams had when those coaches took over.  The question was about THIS team, your argument is senseless.   If this roster had the talent of those teams, then yes, a new coach would make a difference.  But we are discussing this collection of players, even with a new coach isn’t a .500 team.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

Stop, just stop with those comparisons.  The Jets don’t have anywhere near the level of talent those teams had when those coaches took over.  The question was about THIS team, your argument is senseless.   If this roster had the talent of those teams, then yes, a new coach would make a difference.  But we are discussing this collection of players, even with a new coach isn’t a .500 team.  

Yeah, I just think you're wrong and will be proven wrong in 2019. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

You are making a senseless argument based solely on some misguided logic.  2019 will prove nothing because this roster will be entirely different.  

I think it's a pretty simple argument that's easy to follow even though you're struggling -- it's been proven time and time again that coaching is incredibly important in the NFL and changes to coaching staffs have let to incredible turnarounds even when the roster doesn't experience that much turnover. If you don't agree with this premise then I can't really help you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jetsplayer21 said:

Todd bowles doesn’t “ play to win the game “ he plays not to lose like a scared little girl

He plays not to get blown out.  Bowles knows the Johnson bros barely follow the team now especially Woody might not even check the score til Tuesday and if the jets only lose by 1 or 2 touchdowns see it was a competitive game at least

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, UntouchableCrew said:

I think it's a pretty simple argument that's easy to follow even though you're struggling -- it's been proven time and time again that coaching is incredibly important in the NFL and changes to coaching staffs have let to incredible turnarounds even when the roster doesn't experience that much turnover. If you don't agree with this premise then I can't really help you.

 

Coaching with no talent means little.  So essentially you are saying this is a playoff team with a different coach?  The examples you cited all had rosters that had WAY more talent on them than the Jets have right now.  It’s flawed logic and a poor argument.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

Coaching with no talent means little.  So essentially you are saying this is a playoff team with a different coach?  The examples you cited all had rosters that had WAY more talent on them than the Jets have right now.  It’s flawed logic and a poor argument.  

Our roster sucks but a better coach probably gets us to 6-8 wins on the season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

Coaching with no talent means little.  So essentially you are saying this is a playoff team with a different coach?  The examples you cited all had rosters that had WAY more talent on them than the Jets have right now.  It’s flawed logic and a poor argument.  

Not really -- you have just made up your mind that the Jets have zero talent and are unwilling to entertain any argument that suggests the talent on the team is better than you believe and has underachieved under a pitiful coaching staff. There's very clear logic to the argument and I'd be willing to bet the exact same players who "have no talent" on this offense perform significantly better next year under a new coach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jetsbb said:

Yikes. How long have you been watching football? They ran to burn their timeout. Converting would have been an unexpected benefit and very unlikely.

That's playing not to lose.  If you play to win, you get the first down and end the game right there.  Watch any good (non-Jets) team and that is the difference between a winner and a loser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Jetsbb said:

What is the cost benefit analysis? Throwing the ball and converting wins you the game. The cost of not converting is they now have two timeouts instead of one. Does that make any difference though when they have plenty of time with one timeout only needing 3 to tie? Running the ball costs them a timeout but is useless since they have another timeout and only need a FG to tie. Would love to know the analytics percentage of how much greater your chances of winning are by throwing on third down vs running.

It is the crux of why to never hire a defensive coach as HC IMO. Regardless of how good your defense actually is, defensive coaches not only believe that the defense will stop them on the last drive they want to end the game on defense. Kneeling on offense is no where near as appealing to them as ending the game on a sack. Theres literally dozens of high completion throws for that situation but Bowles will run every single time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...