Saleh is full of it.

[peekskill68]

4 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The thing is you literally said:

I don't have the highest opinion of Saleh as HC, but he doesn't "want to win 6-3 every week" as you put it.

He'll take that outcome over a loss, as would any of us, but the idea that he prefers the outcome of a low scoring win over a blowout win is absurd.

Of course he wants to win big. He's had a bad QB, a bad OL, a bunch of newbie first-time coaches on offense from the time they went with Zach and no other options in '21, and all that added together under a defense-first HC leads to what we've seen since he got here.

I very much doubt he'd be dictating his OC call hyper-conservative gameplans if he had a good QB, more than 1 good WR, a good OL, etc. (never mind greatness from one or more of those positions/units).

Indirectly, you are kind of supporting the OP.  In a way, it's like the stock market.  Everyone wants to own stocks when things are going up.  But the best/smartest investors buy when things look bad.  Saleh's great with "let it rip" when the rips are working.  But he shows a lot of fear/risk aversion when things get dicey.  This gets in the head of the OC, his staff, the QB, and basically the entire team.  It's not a winning formula...

[Warfish]

4 hours ago, BroadwayJoe12 said:

Totally. It was Salah’s, Rex’s and Bowles’ short leash that cause Sanch…Darn… Wilson to miss swing passes to RBs out of the backfield and dirt wide open receivers. When Zach was finally unshackled with all of those limitations he was finally able to just sling it and let it rip… 

You're forgetting that Woody finally ordered Hackett to call the good plays.

[LionelRichie]

5 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

This.

That he may be too risk averse to achieve such a score with a young QB with turnover and game speed issues, doesn't therefore mean he desires a low scoring game. 

He would love to run up the score and pin his pass rushers' ears back, even if his preference is for a few TDs to happen via the ground game and game-managing passing over stomaching a lesser QB's lesser points. 

The one game that really stands out was vs the raiders.  Jets came out aggressive, moving the ball took a 9-3 lead and then really stopped attacking and when they blew the lead they couldn’t get the flow back.   
 

I think defensive coaches overvalue smaller leads and offensive coaches continue to take risks and try to run it up.  

[Sperm Edwards]

9 hours ago, peekskill68 said:

Indirectly, you are kind of supporting the OP.  In a way, it's like the stock market.  Everyone wants to own stocks when things are going up.  But the best/smartest investors buy when things look bad.  Saleh's great with "let it rip" when the rips are working.  But he shows a lot of fear/risk aversion when things get dicey.  This gets in the head of the OC, his staff, the QB, and basically the entire team.  It's not a winning formula...

Guess what?

Everyone wants to “let it rip” when it’s working - even conservative coaches - and those wimpy dumpoff passes aren’t all designed dumpoff passes from the outset so much as designed checkdown outlets. The only ones that are designed puss-ball calls are the 3rd & long runs, where they’ve already accepted the fate of punting so they figure they may as well hopefully add 8+ yards of field position (which further took their otherwise merely-awful 3rd down conversion rate into record-setting territory).

They lean a bit too conservative for me, too, but it’s a simpleton’s notion that Saleh (or Hackett, or whomever) is oblivious to the idea that a more conservative offense will typically limit its yardage/scoring opportunities and speed, and force scoring drives to be the result of moving the sticks 6x instead of 4 (or fewer). That despite all their years in & around professional and winning teams, they just can’t see what we keyboard warriors see, as if there’s nothing but downside in failure to bow to the altar of let it rip. The upside he sees to playing it safer, with terrible personnel on offense and a solid defense, is you’re still in the game, and on the next series you live to fight another day because your dumbass QB didn’t just score a TD for the other team with a fumble or pick-6 while trying to let it rip. 

His QB sucked ass, and amazingly the position got even worse when they swapped him out like we all wanted. No matter how many times they put their #1 WR in a downfield opportunity for big gainers, too many presume that because it wasn’t converted (sometimes not even thrown) it’s because it escapes the benighted HC and OC that completing a pass farther down the field gains more yards than throwing it shorter (or a run), and we should instead insert Madden and fantasy football champs as the coaching staff’s braintrust because they get it better.

It’s as though people really believe all the ugly wins they did get would still be wins, and then one can magically and simply add to that baseline total with a “let it rip” offense from start to finish every week despite subar personnel and backups all over the place on offense except for maybe 1 dynamic WR (with his own mental lapses) and an occasionally-dynamic RB who’s looked like old Frank Gore when he’s not breaking a once & a while long run. 

[Sperm Edwards]

9 hours ago, LionelRichie said:

The one game that really stands out was vs the raiders.  Jets came out aggressive, moving the ball took a 9-3 lead and then really stopped attacking and when they blew the lead they couldn’t get the flow back.   
 

I think defensive coaches overvalue smaller leads and offensive coaches continue to take risks and try to run it up.  

Did they stop attacking or did the plays just fall flat as the QB settled for one short completion after another that went nowhere (and often misfiring even on the short ones)? 

Here’s the truth about that game:

Hackett had Zach drop back to pass 45 times and handed it off to his backs just 17 times, and tbh most of the passing was in the 2nd half not early-on. You only think of them as attacking more because they didn’t go 3 or 4 & out, not because they actually changed what they were doing with WCO possession-type short passes.

There were two straight possessions after Whitehead’s pick where they were trying to run it more, but each requires context:

1. Leading 6-3, they had 1st & goal from the 3, and ran Hall in for a TD called back on Uzomah’s holding penalty - his second of the game as the team was driving to score - so running it should’ve put 7 on the board instead of 3 to make the lead 13-3. After that, 1st & goal from the 13 and running it twice before a futile pass attempt on 3rd & goal from back there. Yeah it’s not my thing either, but it’s convenient to forget Zach ****ing sucked, Mr. Giant Goal Line Target Lazard can’t catch, and they wanted to come away with sure points instead of a strip sack.
2. The second possession after the pick, in particular, where there was no pass attempt before punting, but again  context: Cook got a 10 yard run and then a 9 yard run on successive 1st downs. We’d all take that to start every drive. Then it’s not at all unusual for teams to run it on 2nd/3rd & 1, especially right after getting such big ground gainers), and if they incomplete-passed their way to punting after that we’d have instead been cursing at a failure to keep running it while that’s working. 

After that was a hurry-up of all passing in the 2 minute drill, followed by a 2nd half of almost exclusively passing. If they’d run it a little in the 2 minute drill a bit, instead of “attacking” exclusively, maybe they’d have bled some more than 50 seconds of clock off and the Raiders wouldn’t have had time to push forward a FG to end the first half with a 6-point lead.

The rest of the game - including the entire 2nd half - it was almost all passing (like 80% passing 20% rushing, if not even more lopsided than that), so I don’t think that’s accurate that they stopped attacking when they never really started. Plus some of the shorter stuff was because they were so far back behind the LOS due to penalty after penalty - over 80 yards in penalties in a close game - they’d have been very low percentage attempts anyway.

Even early in the game that supposed “attacking” was a bunch of 2-7 yard passes. They only seem longer if they’re hit in stride with some green in front of them that gives opportunity to make it a bit longer. Zach wasn’t slinging it downfield en route to the first 3 scores either. 

[Larz]

Today on “as the Zach turns”

 

[rangerous]

33 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Guess what?

Everyone wants to “let it rip” when it’s working - even conservative coaches - and those wimpy dumpoff passes aren’t all designed dumpoff passes from the outset so much as designed checkdown outlets. The only ones that are designed puss-ball calls are the 3rd & long runs, where they’ve already accepted the fate of punting so they figure they may as well hopefully add 8+ yards of field position (which further took their otherwise merely-awful 3rd down conversion rate into record-setting territory).

They lean a bit too conservative for me, too, but it’s a simpleton’s notion that Saleh (or Hackett, or whomever) is oblivious to the idea that a more conservative offense will typically limit its yardage/scoring opportunities and speed, and force scoring drives to be the result of moving the sticks 6x instead of 4 (or fewer). That despite all their years in & around professional and winning teams, they just can’t see what we keyboard warriors see, as if there’s nothing but downside in failure to bow to the altar of let it rip. The upside he sees to playing it safer, with terrible personnel on offense and a solid defense, is you’re still in the game, and on the next series you live to fight another day because your dumbass QB didn’t just score a TD for the other team with a fumble or pick-6 while trying to let it rip. 

His QB sucked ass, and amazingly the position got even worse when they swapped him out like we all wanted. No matter how many times they put their #1 WR in a downfield opportunity for big gainers, too many presume that because it wasn’t converted (sometimes not even thrown) it’s because it escapes the benighted HC and OC that completing a pass farther down the field gains more yards than throwing it shorter (or a run), and we should instead insert Madden and fantasy football champs as the coaching staff’s braintrust because they get it better.

It’s as though people really believe all the ugly wins they did get would still be wins, and then one can magically and simply add to that baseline total with a “let it rip” offense from start to finish every week despite subar personnel and backups all over the place on offense except for maybe 1 dynamic WR (with his own mental lapses) and an occasionally-dynamic RB who’s looked like old Frank Gore when he’s not breaking a once & a while long run. 

I don’t think they had a let it rip offense on Sunday as much as one that gave Zach the green light to take some shots.  Those shots were also available to Boyle and Zach the whole season.  The qb should be throwing into single coverage if the receivers are capable of fighting for the ball.  Previously it seemed like Zach was too focused on not making a mistake that he needed to let plays develop slowly to ensure the receiver would be free.  And the oline just wasn’t able to keep the dline at bay.  And this reluctance to take chances hurt the run game.  I believe breece hall got very down on Zach and the oline.  The quicker decision making by Zach helped the oline pass protection and he was quicker going to the check down when under pressure.  I honk if he played the same in in the previous games not only would the wins still be wins but a few more would’ve been picked up.

 So, yes, I do think saleh had something to do about playing this mistake free offense.  It’s too bad the oline players ,who got a ton of procedure penalties or holds, didn’t get the memo.

[rangerous]

10 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Did they stop attacking or did the plays just fall flat as the QB settled for one short completion after another that went nowhere (and often misfiring even on the short ones)? 

Here’s the truth about that game:

Hackett had Zach drop back to pass 45 times and handed it off to his backs just 17 times, and tbh most of the passing was in the 2nd half not early-on. You only think of them as attacking more because they didn’t go 3 or 4 & out, not because they actually changed what they were doing with WCO possession-type short passes.

There were two straight possessions after Whitehead’s pick where they were trying to run it more, but each requires context:

1. Leading 6-3, they had 1st & goal from the 3, and ran Hall in for a TD called back on Uzomah’s holding penalty - his second of the game as the team was driving to score - so running it should’ve put 7 on the board instead of 3 to make the lead 13-3. After that, 1st & goal from the 13 and running it twice before a futile pass attempt on 3rd & goal from back there. Yeah it’s not my thing either, but it’s convenient to forget Zach ****ing sucked, Mr. Giant Goal Line Target Lazard can’t catch, and they wanted to come away with sure points instead of a strip sack.
2. The second possession after the pick, in particular, where there was no pass attempt before punting, but again  context: Cook got a 10 yard run and then a 9 yard run on successive 1st downs. We’d all take that to start every drive. Then it’s not at all unusual for teams to run it on 2nd/3rd & 1, especially right after getting such big ground gainers), and if they incomplete-passed their way to punting after that we’d have instead been cursing at a failure to keep running it while that’s working. 

After that was a hurry-up of all passing in the 2 minute drill, followed by a 2nd half of almost exclusively passing. If they’d run it a little in the 2 minute drill a bit, instead of “attacking” exclusively, maybe they’d have bled some more than 50 seconds of clock off and the Raiders wouldn’t have had time to push forward a FG to end the first half with a 6-point lead.

The rest of the game - including the entire 2nd half - it was almost all passing (like 80% passing 20% rushing, if not even more lopsided than that), so I don’t think that’s accurate that they stopped attacking when they never really started. Plus some of the shorter stuff was because they were so far back behind the LOS due to penalty after penalty - over 80 yards in penalties in a close game - they’d have been very low percentage attempts anyway.

Even early in the game that supposed “attacking” was a bunch of 2-7 yard passes. They only seem longer if they’re hit in stride with some green in front of them that gives opportunity to make it a bit longer. Zach wasn’t slinging it downfield en route to the first 3 scores either. 

Didn’t Lazard have a ton of drops in this game?  Weren’t there also quite a few holding calls or other procedure calls?  These are drive killers and it does no good if the qb doesn’t have much confidence in the receivers catching the ball.

[Sperm Edwards]

39 minutes ago, rangerous said:

I don’t think they had a let it rip offense on Sunday as much as one that gave Zach the green light to take some shots.  Those shots were also available to Boyle and Zach the whole season.  The qb should be throwing into single coverage if the receivers are capable of fighting for the ball.  Previously it seemed like Zach was too focused on not making a mistake that he needed to let plays develop slowly to ensure the receiver would be free.  And the oline just wasn’t able to keep the dline at bay.  And this reluctance to take chances hurt the run game.  I believe breece hall got very down on Zach and the oline.  The quicker decision making by Zach helped the oline pass protection and he was quicker going to the check down when under pressure.  I honk if he played the same in in the previous games not only would the wins still be wins but a few more would’ve been picked up.

 So, yes, I do think saleh had something to do about playing this mistake free offense.  It’s too bad the oline players ,who got a ton of procedure penalties or holds, didn’t get the memo.

I think there’s some truth to the latter, but Saleh would have to have brain damage to not give a crap how many times his QB keeps turning it over by throwing picks and holding the ball so long he takes extra sacks & strip sacks with them. 

It’s a convenient take to say, “Here’s the always-smarter take: let it rip.” Meanwhile they may not have accumulated half the wins they did, while possibly adding one more. It’s not like he’s been even remotely consistent (not consistently good, I mean) for any stretches thus far. 

I’ve got lots of complaints about Saleh, but when plays are called that get receivers free downfield, and the QB is still just holding it into a sack, waiting that extra second until he’s not open anymore before throwing it, or just pusses out to his back instead, that’s not a Saleh thing. 

Much like Rex at least tried doing with his red-yellow-green thing for Sanchez, it’s unrealistic to say to a turnover-prone QB you don’t care what he does just wing it with no worries about turning it over. We’ve seen too many Zach interceptions over the middle into triple coverage to say, “Yeah Saleh should just let him be him.” Zach being Zach sucked. 

It would be a dereliction of duty to just shrug it off as we watched these painful close losses & sometimes close wins instead turn into blowout losses that had no chance past the first quarter.

That said, if Zach could keep this up, I think we can all tolerate a pick or a fumble here & there - even more than an ideally-small amount - if we’re weekly putting up 25+ on offense behind a QB whose cannon arm means they can score from anywhere.

We’re nowhere near there yet. We’re nowhere near even wanting him back as a QB3 over a draft pick and $5MM more cap space for his replacement(s), let alone as a QB2 or as an eventual starter. 

[Jet Nut]

20 hours ago, shawn306 said:

If you think a defensive minded coach want to win 6-3 instead of 30-6 you are clueless. 
 

Defensive minded coaches want a lead so he can unleash his pass rush. 

Exactly.

Plus have to love the idea that coaches who’s main job as a DC is to stop all kinds of offenses, know nothing about offense.  And more importantly, which offenses are the hardest to stop and therefore would want their teams to run those types of offenses.

Nevermind that HCs like Shula, Belichick, Parcells etc all came from defensive sides of the game.  

[rangerous]

54 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I think there’s some truth to the latter, but Saleh would have to have brain damage to not give a crap how many times his QB keeps turning it over by throwing picks and holding the ball so long he takes extra sacks & strip sacks with them. 

It’s a convenient take to say, “Here’s the always-smarter take: let it rip.” Meanwhile they may not have accumulated half the wins they did, while possibly adding one more. It’s not like he’s been even remotely consistent (not consistently good, I mean) for any stretches thus far. 

I’ve got lots of complaints about Saleh, but when plays are called that get receivers free downfield, and the QB is still just holding it into a sack, waiting that extra second until he’s not open anymore before throwing it, or just pusses out to his back instead, that’s not a Saleh thing. 

Much like Rex at least tried doing with his red-yellow-green thing for Sanchez, it’s unrealistic to say to a turnover-prone QB you don’t care what he does just wing it with no worries about turning it over. We’ve seen too many Zach interceptions over the middle into triple coverage to say, “Yeah Saleh should just let him be him.” Zach being Zach sucked. 

It would be a dereliction of duty to just shrug it off as we watched these painful close losses & sometimes close wins instead turn into blowout losses that had no chance past the first quarter.

That said, if Zach could keep this up, I think we can all tolerate a pick or a fumble here & there - even more than an ideally-small amount - if we’re weekly putting up 25+ on offense behind a QB whose cannon arm means they can score from anywhere.

We’re nowhere near there yet. We’re nowhere near even wanting him back as a QB3 over a draft pick and $5MM more cap space for his replacement(s), let alone as a QB2 or as an eventual starter. 

Totally agree the jets need to see Zach back up his performance of last Sunday.  The caveat is the rest of the offense needs to do the same.  I think the main impression I got from the game is the offense was behind Zach.  The win helps but doesn’t happen if breece hall, or Conklin, or Ruckert ( don’t have to mention gWilson since he’s always there) don’t make the plays.  I also noted Lazard was pretty much absent in the passing game.

 I also think for the first two seasons, saleh relied too much on milfy to get the offense on track.  IMO milfy was not up to the task.  It’s easy enough to design plays. It’s way harder to make sure everyone understands those plays.

 As for Zach’s future, I’m not against seeing the jets draft a qb.  I’d be against using a high pick on the guy.  Assuming Rodgers stays healthy and plays they have some time to develop a guy.  I do think there’s still a chance Zach can be that guy and I think Zach can be a back up.

[#27TheDominator]

17 hours ago, Beerfish said:

Maybe GI Joe wanna be better tell his oc that he needs to rip it, Hackett is the one calling the 2 yard hand off into the line to cook on down 1 and 2.

It's amazing that Cook was able to derail the offense so completely while getting 2 carries against the Giants, Chargers, and Bills, 4 against the Raiders, and 1 against the Dolphins.  Shocking how many first and second down dives into the line he had with 11 carries during our 5 game swoon.

[FootballLove]

Saleh did say he wants ZW to play boring football. Take that as you may.

Me? I see that as Saleh wants a ball control offense that doesn't turn it over. No hero ball.

What we saw last week was Hero Ball. In the second half. First half? Boring football with no turnovers. Saleh Ball if you will.

One thing I saw last week that I haven't seen much of is Zach making the easy passes look easy. All of his short throws were spot on, even the TD passes to Cob and Breece.

I also saw Hackett running Cook into the line, but with Breece, he had ZW fake the handoff, then toss it to him after he cleared the LOS. Like a running play that starts out as a short pass. Breece had like 80 yards receiving, 90% was running after the catch. The exact kind of pass the ZW would dirt ball, he's now hitting in stride.

[JoeNamathsFurCoat]

19 hours ago, GandWFan said:

Just listened to Saleh's press conference.  What a lying sack of sh*t.  Says he told Zach what he always tells him; go sling it.  What a bunch of crap.

What about playing boring is good.  Don't turn the ball over.  

We need an offensive minded coach.  Enough these DCs who want to win 6-3 every week.

And if you are going to go with a defense first philosophy, own it.  Don't give us this bullsh*t about "Just sling it".  Even he doesn't believe it when he says it.

I see you, Robert Saleh.

LOL

Took you this long to realize he’s a shameless prevaricator? 😃

[Sperm Edwards]

35 minutes ago, rangerous said:

Totally agree the jets need to see Zach back up his performance of last Sunday.  The caveat is the rest of the offense needs to do the same.  I think the main impression I got from the game is the offense was behind Zach.  The win helps but doesn’t happen if breece hall, or Conklin, or Ruckert ( don’t have to mention gWilson since he’s always there) don’t make the plays.  I also noted Lazard was pretty much absent in the passing game.

 I also think for the first two seasons, saleh relied too much on milfy to get the offense on track.  IMO milfy was not up to the task.  It’s easy enough to design plays. It’s way harder to make sure everyone understands those plays.

 As for Zach’s future, I’m not against seeing the jets draft a qb.  I’d be against using a high pick on the guy.  Assuming Rodgers stays healthy and plays they have some time to develop a guy.  I do think there’s still a chance Zach can be that guy and I think Zach can be a back up.

The rest of the offense is behind Zach more than they're behind Siemian or the now-departed Boyle, yes.

Lazard was on the field for 49/68 snaps (for comparison, GW was on for 62) and was not targeted once. 

The first 5 games (through the Denver game) he caught 13 passes on 20 targets (65%) for 202 yards. Nothing particularly good, a WR2 being on pace for 600-700 yards (40ypg), but given the obvious handicap at QB and the low number of team passes attempted over that span (just under 30 apg), it's a product of a lack of targets and in line with his past numbers from Green Bay - with Rodgers - I guess it wasn't tragic.

Since the Eagles game week 6 (7 games, not counting the game he was benched), he's caught just 7 of his 22 targets (31.8%) for 88 yards (13ypg), and it's not like is presence on the field has had some obviously positive effect in the ground game due to his blocking prowess. Then when you throw in his penalties and drops, those are worst WR in football numbers.

What a disaster.

[Sperm Edwards]

33 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

It's amazing that Cook was able to derail the offense so completely while getting 2 carries against the Giants, Chargers, and Bills, 4 against the Raiders, and 1 against the Dolphins.  Shocking how many first and second down dives into the line he had with 11 carries during our 5 game swoon.

It really just shows how insidious his presence really is. Good job pointing it out.

[peekskill68]

3 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Guess what?

Everyone wants to “let it rip” when it’s working - even conservative coaches - and those wimpy dumpoff passes aren’t all designed dumpoff passes from the outset so much as designed checkdown outlets. The only ones that are designed puss-ball calls are the 3rd & long runs, where they’ve already accepted the fate of punting so they figure they may as well hopefully add 8+ yards of field position (which further took their otherwise merely-awful 3rd down conversion rate into record-setting territory).

They lean a bit too conservative for me, too, but it’s a simpleton’s notion that Saleh (or Hackett, or whomever) is oblivious to the idea that a more conservative offense will typically limit its yardage/scoring opportunities and speed, and force scoring drives to be the result of moving the sticks 6x instead of 4 (or fewer). That despite all their years in & around professional and winning teams, they just can’t see what we keyboard warriors see, as if there’s nothing but downside in failure to bow to the altar of let it rip. The upside he sees to playing it safer, with terrible personnel on offense and a solid defense, is you’re still in the game, and on the next series you live to fight another day because your dumbass QB didn’t just score a TD for the other team with a fumble or pick-6 while trying to let it rip. 

His QB sucked ass, and amazingly the position got even worse when they swapped him out like we all wanted. No matter how many times they put their #1 WR in a downfield opportunity for big gainers, too many presume that because it wasn’t converted (sometimes not even thrown) it’s because it escapes the benighted HC and OC that completing a pass farther down the field gains more yards than throwing it shorter (or a run), and we should instead insert Madden and fantasy football champs as the coaching staff’s braintrust because they get it better.

It’s as though people really believe all the ugly wins they did get would still be wins, and then one can magically and simply add to that baseline total with a “let it rip” offense from start to finish every week despite subar personnel and backups all over the place on offense except for maybe 1 dynamic WR (with his own mental lapses) and an occasionally-dynamic RB who’s looked like old Frank Gore when he’s not breaking a once & a while long run. 

I'm struggling with this on several levels.  First of all, we can agree (hopefully) that the rules, the refs, the game have all been programmed to reward "let it rip" play.  Protecting the QB from getting hit, ticky tack flags for PI on 50/50 balls, everything in the game now is bent towards promoting offense and risk taking.  Second, from a management perspective, you are penalized for mediocrity.  If you do not make the playoffs, there is literally a built-in incentive to lose games, not win ugly ones.  I can see a playoff team trying for home field advantage to grind out a 13-10 ground and pound win.  But for most teams, the incentive to keep things close and hope for a break or two just isn't there.  It is better to go for broke and wind up 4-13 than it is to steal a few wins and get to 7-10.  Third, from a team building perspective, you have to know quickly whether your drafted QB is a franchise difference maker.  The incentives to build the team around a rookie QB contract are well known.  So in the big picture, it is better in the long term to put your rookie QB out there and let him rip it.  I hear the arguments about letting guys like Mahomes sit behind Smith.  But I question whether Mahomes wouldn't be Mahomes if he just went out there as a rookie and played.  You need to know very early in your QB's career if he's got the goods.  You can't try and win by hiding the guy.  That is what Saleh has been doing since Day 1.  It's the wrong mindset.  

[SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN]

18 hours ago, Robert said:

Stop

we in the middle of a lynching

truth not allowed 

[Sperm Edwards]

5 minutes ago, peekskill68 said:

I'm struggling with this on several levels.  First of all, we can agree (hopefully) that the rules, the refs, the game have all been programmed to reward "let it rip" play.  Protecting the QB from getting hit, ticky tack flags for PI on 50/50 balls, everything in the game now is bent towards promoting offense and risk taking.  Second, from a management perspective, you are penalized for mediocrity.  If you do not make the playoffs, there is literally a built-in incentive to lose games, not win ugly ones.  I can see a playoff team trying for home field advantage to grind out a 13-10 ground and pound win.  But for most teams, the incentive to keep things close and hope for a break or two just isn't there.  It is better to go for broke and wind up 4-13 than it is to steal a few wins and get to 7-10.  Third, from a team building perspective, you have to know quickly whether your drafted QB is a franchise difference maker.  The incentives to build the team around a rookie QB contract are well known.  So in the big picture, it is better in the long term to put your rookie QB out there and let him rip it.  I hear the arguments about letting guys like Mahomes sit behind Smith.  But I question whether Mahomes wouldn't be Mahomes if he just went out there as a rookie and played.  You need to know very early in your QB's career if he's got the goods.  You can't try and win by hiding the guy.  That is what Saleh has been doing since Day 1.  It's the wrong mindset.  

The bolded is where you go wrong, because your much longer-term "incentive" as a fan is different than those in charge of the team.

That incentive - season is over, may as well lose out the rest of the way - may be there for fans, but until it's literally the last 1-2 games of the season, that incentive doesn't exist for a HC, probably not the GM either, and definitely not the position coaches and coordinators.

Coaches would much rather finish the season 6-11 than 4-13 to make their failed job seem like less of an on-paper failure.

[JetPotato]

19 hours ago, shawn306 said:

If you think a defensive minded coach want to win 6-3 instead of 30-6 you are clueless. 
 

Defensive minded coaches want a lead so he can unleash his pass rush. 

It's not about "wants to" as much as it is "can"

[ASH1962]

21 hours ago, GandWFan said:

Just listened to Saleh's press conference.  What a lying sack of sh*t.  Says he told Zach what he always tells him; go sling it.  What a bunch of crap.

What about playing boring is good.  Don't turn the ball over.  

We need an offensive minded coach.  Enough these DCs who want to win 6-3 every week.

And if you are going to go with a defense first philosophy, own it.  Don't give us this bullsh*t about "Just sling it".  Even he doesn't believe it when he says it.

I see you, Robert Saleh.

Henceforth my nickname for him "Coach Salesman". Guy hasn't said one true thing since he's been here.

[56mehl56]

19 hours ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

How many times do we have to see a wide-open Garrett Wilson on the All-22 before we blame Zach and not the head coach?

Watch any All-22 film from any NFL game and tell me how many wide open wr's you see who don't get the ball. It happens in every single NFL game. 

[peekskill68]

2 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The bolded is where you go wrong, because your much longer-term "incentive" as a fan is different than those in charge of the team.

That incentive - season is over, may as well lose out the rest of the way - may be there for fans, but until it's literally the last 1-2 games of the season, that incentive doesn't exist for a HC, probably not the GM either, and definitely not the position coaches and coordinators.

Coaches would much rather finish the season 6-11 than 4-13 to make their failed job seem like less of an on-paper failure.

That's fair.  I guess we agree to disagree.  Beyond the "play to win the game" BS, I'm not sure a 6-11 season is necessarily better for coach and staff than 4-13.  Both likely lead to unemployment.  I believe if you coach with the right mindset/right approach and your players produce tape showing they can't execute (QB slow/off target, OL outmuscled, WR can't separate, etc.) that's a better look than consciously designing your approach to hide all their short comings trying to steal a couple of wins.  I just think your mindset needs to be based on exploiting all the advantages the rules provide.  Not that it will ever happen, but if a guy like Wilson flourishes for some reason when he's allowed to let it rip and exploit the rules, but sucks as a game manager, that's on the HC and his staff.  If he is coached to let it rip and exploit the rules and he simply can't do it, that becomes more of a GM/scout issue.   

[Claymation]

Zach Wilson did a great job extending plays and finding check downs. He had two "big-time plays" off schedule, including the 3rd and 12 to Wilson. There are "little tiny screams" from coaches when a QB tries a daring pass like that, but Hackett liked how Z Wilson set his feet before throwing across his body.

That kind of contradicts Saleh's comment to "Let it Rip".

[Claymation]

21 hours ago, TheNuuFaaolaExperience said:

How many times do we have to see a wide-open Garrett Wilson on the All-22 before we blame Zach and not the head coach?

GW has been targeted 134 times this year, 3rd most in the NFL.

[rangerous]

4 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

The rest of the offense is behind Zach more than they're behind Siemian or the now-departed Boyle, yes.

Lazard was on the field for 49/68 snaps (for comparison, GW was on for 62) and was not targeted once. 

The first 5 games (through the Denver game) he caught 13 passes on 20 targets (65%) for 202 yards. Nothing particularly good, a WR2 being on pace for 600-700 yards (40ypg), but given the obvious handicap at QB and the low number of team passes attempted over that span (just under 30 apg), it's a product of a lack of targets and in line with his past numbers from Green Bay - with Rodgers - I guess it wasn't tragic.

Since the Eagles game week 6 (7 games, not counting the game he was benched), he's caught just 7 of his 22 targets (31.8%) for 88 yards (13ypg), and it's not like is presence on the field has had some obviously positive effect in the ground game due to his blocking prowess. Then when you throw in his penalties and drops, those are worst WR in football numbers.

What a disaster.

I thought Lazard actually started off pretty well.  It looked like he would be able to replace Davis’ numbers. But these last few games hes been horrible in pass receptions.  And weather can’t be an excuse since he was reasonably successful in balmy Green Bay.

[AZSOJ]

He had a bad drop rate in GB also...as did Cobb... both are stiffs.

[Plen T]

On 12/13/2023 at 4:44 PM, shawn306 said:

If you think a defensive minded coach want to win 6-3 instead of 30-6 you are clueless. 
 

Defensive minded coaches want a lead so he can unleash his pass rush. 

Naw

defensive coaches are enamored with boring run run run 🏈 as long as there are no turnovers they feel they can win on field goals 

[GandWFan]

2 hours ago, Claymation said:

Zach Wilson did a great job extending plays and finding check downs. He had two "big-time plays" off schedule, including the 3rd and 12 to Wilson. There are "little tiny screams" from coaches when a QB tries a daring pass like that, but Hackett liked how Z Wilson set his feet before throwing across his body.

That kind of contradicts Saleh's comment to "Let it Rip".

Hackett to Zach after the game, "Nice pass.  Never do that again!"

[Rangers9]

I think the biggest lie I heard from Saleh was that Zach legit won the job in preseason year 1. 

[Hex]

8 minutes ago, Rangers9 said:

I think the biggest lie I heard from Saleh was that Zach legit won the job in preseason year 1. 

He probably did win. They just didn't put any competition against him.

[Larz]

* Pass-happy approach in the second half wasn't by design. He said Houston was committed to stopping the run, so they adjusted on the fly.

 

 thought Zach only had a good half because the Texans went cover 2?
 
 

@T0mShane?

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

2 hours ago, Claymation said:

GW has been targeted 134 times this year, 3rd most in the NFL.

If he targeted him when he was wide open, we would be singing the praises of Zach. Instead, he forces throws to Wilson when he is covered.

[TheNuuFaaolaExperience]

4 hours ago, 56mehl56 said:

Watch any All-22 film from any NFL game and tell me how many wide open wr's you see who don't get the ball. It happens in every single NFL game. 

Not the point. The point was that Saleh needs to "let Zach rip it", but he hasn't ripped it when Wilson is open downfield.