Jump to content

Stupid decision to go for the onside kick


124

Recommended Posts

I don't care if the entire second half was left, I DON'T ****ING CARE! It's a bull**** call and even if we had recovered it it would have been a stupid move. You do not onside kick when the game is tied 0-0. Stupid ****ing play call and that was the momentum changer in the game. We basically gave the Bears 3 points because how could they not at least pick up one 1st down and score? Robie Gould is PERFECT, you knew he had a great chance of making any kick and you pull that ****? Stupid play call. Stupid. ****ing stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely agree.

The people that say "You would have said it was a great call if we had recovered it" are full of ****. There are times when you try that and times when you don't. Against Indy in the 2nd quarter, yes. Coming out of half-time tied 0-0 in a game of field position, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care if the entire second half was left, I DON'T ****ING CARE! It's a bull**** call and even if we had recovered it it would have been a stupid move. You do not onside kick when the game is tied 0-0. Stupid ****ing play call and that was the momentum changer in the game. We basically gave the Bears 3 points because how could they not at least pick up one 1st down and score? Robie Gould is PERFECT, you knew he had a great chance of making any kick and you pull that ****? Stupid play call. Stupid. ****ing stupid.

The momentum changer in the game was Pennington.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Five or so plays usually change the course and outcome of the game, and that was glaring in this game.

CP's 2 ints

the onside kick (stupid call)

drew coleman missing the tackle on the long TD play

the reversal of the fumble call

Those few plays were the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is ironic is that we don't even consider the onside kick if that fumble goes our way and we get points before the half.

While I aprreciate the class of most posters on here, to be honest I don't think that fumble should've been overturned. There wasn't enough of conclusive evidence to change the call IMO. When TJs knee touched the ground the ball was already coming out. There were a couple of bad calls for both teams though, yet that one stood out since it would have given you guys a scoring chance AND was the only turnover the Bears would've commited in the game. I'll post my thread of post game thoughts later on tonight. Good Game. WE'll try to punk out the Pats for you guys next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I aprreciate the class of most posters on here, to be honest I don't think that fumble should've been overturned. There wasn't enough of conclusive evidence to change the call IMO. When TJs knee touched the ground the ball was already coming out. There were a couple of bad calls for both teams though, yet that one stood out since it would have given you guys a scoring chance AND was the only turnover the Bears would've commited in the game. I'll post my thread of post game thoughts later on tonight. Good Game. WE'll try to punk out the Pats for you guys next week.

It'd be much appreciated. And a turnover from our defense, including that dropped INT by Barrett both would have been game changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I aprreciate the class of most posters on here, to be honest I don't think that fumble should've been overturned. There wasn't enough of conclusive evidence to change the call IMO. When TJs knee touched the ground the ball was already coming out. There were a couple of bad calls for both teams though, yet that one stood out since it would have given you guys a scoring chance AND was the only turnover the Bears would've commited in the game. I'll post my thread of post game thoughts later on tonight. Good Game. WE'll try to punk out the Pats for you guys next week.

I had no doubt the call would be over-turned.

The refs don't need indisputable visual evidence whenever it comes to ****ing the Jets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I aprreciate the class of most posters on here, to be honest I don't think that fumble should've been overturned. There wasn't enough of conclusive evidence to change the call IMO. When TJs knee touched the ground the ball was already coming out. There were a couple of bad calls for both teams though, yet that one stood out since it would have given you guys a scoring chance AND was the only turnover the Bears would've commited in the game. I'll post my thread of post game thoughts later on tonight. Good Game. WE'll try to punk out the Pats for you guys next week.

Funny, I thought it should be overturned. I was surprised those two knuckleheads were in agreement that the ball was already coming loose. Looked to me like when he jarred his knee on the ground it sprung the ball. I wondered what everybody else thought. Guess I was on my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The momentum changer in the game was Pennington.

True.

Take away that INT with Coles wide open in the end zone and any kind of offense and we win. The defense did it's job. Nobody loses a football game for a risky ST play that ultimately cost 3 points. Mangini did that because the offense was totally anemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True.

Take away that INT with Coles wide open in the end zone and any kind of offense and we win. The defense did it's job. Nobody loses a football game for a risky ST play that ultimately cost 3 points. Mangini did that because the offense was totally anemic.

bingo

Big shock. I've been defending Pennington in three + threads and even I'll admit that. He certainly had a bad game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True.

Take away that INT with Coles wide open in the end zone and any kind of offense and we win. The defense did it's job. Nobody loses a football game for a risky ST play that ultimately cost 3 points. Mangini did that because the offense was totally anemic.

I agree. I wouldn't have called the onsides kick as you play for field position in these games, but with the way they creatively ran it and considering Devon Hester is a very dangerous kick returner I wont kill Mangini for it, but I would not have have done it. At the end of the day it only led to 3 points and if you told me before the game we needed 11 to win I would have felt confident about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see Ramsey being considerably worse. Not throwing for 200 yards is a nice stat, but the Jets were in all the games except Jax. That's not always because of Chad, but usually, along with the bend but don't break D, you play a controlled O, so that you are in the game at the end. That often keeps the qb from having individual stats. I won't defend Chad's performance today. It's indefensible, but change for the sake of change is not how to develop a good football team. If anybody else earns the starting job fine, if not live with chicken arm.

You cannot defend the indefensible.

You're quoting me now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I wouldn't have called the onsides kick as you play for field position in these games, but with the way they creatively ran it and considering Devon Hester is a very dangerous kick returner So I wont kill Mangini for it, but I would not have have done it. At the end of the day it only led to 3 points and if you told me before the game we needed 11 to win I would have felt confident about it.

Hester doesn't even return kickoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Post On Forum!

lol

but yea watching this game it wasnt the onside kick it was more than that

Chad threw 2 int. in the first half

one in the red zone

and another when we was like 10 yards from the red zone..

we could have put points up on both of those drives..

so u cant jus blame it on the onside kick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the board, 914.

I also forgot to give a shout-out to our girlie-legged, 2nd-round draft pick, kicker; who Mangini won't even allow to ATTEMPT either a 52-yarder in a tie game or a 49-yarder in a 10-pt game with over 6 min left. 6 more points, wiped off the scoreboard; Chad took care of at least 10 (if not 14) more.

The onside kick had a total effect of 3 points on the scoreboard. And it wasn't quite the momentum-killer some alluded to. Chicago had 1st & goal from our 4 & only walked away with a FG. If they came away with 7, running the ball all the way in, it would've been much more of a momentum-shift.

Chad's arm & Nugent's leg cost us at least 16-20 points between them. The onside kick, even though unsuccessful, was a ballsy call that didn't prove to be half the difference that these two sub-par players were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the board, 914.

I also forgot to give a shout-out to our girlie-legged, 2nd-round draft pick, kicker; who Mangini won't even allow to ATTEMPT either a 52-yarder in a tie game or a 49-yarder in a 10-pt game with over 6 min left. 6 more points, wiped off the scoreboard; Chad took care of at least 10 (if not 14) more.

The onside kick had a total effect of 3 points on the scoreboard. And it wasn't quite the momentum-killer some alluded to. Chicago had 1st & goal from our 4 & only walked away with a FG. If they came away with 7, running the ball all the way in, it would've been much more of a momentum-shift.

Chad's arm & Nugent's leg cost us at least 16-20 points between them. The onside kick, even though unsuccessful, was a ballsy call that didn't prove to be half the difference that these two sub-par players were.

Excellent point on the onside SE, Risk - Reward is something coach talks about all the time..Alot of people scream we should do more blitzing and The Jets blitz more but there is risk to that..Coleman misses a tackle..7 points..Chicago's defense is freakin good, they are by far the best tackling team I've seen this year and they play smart and are very well coached..The Jets played GREAT defense yesterday but you cannot beat the Bears without taking some risks. Chad needs to play better,we go as he goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The onside kick had a total effect of 3 points on the scoreboard. And it wasn't quite the momentum-killer some alluded to. Chicago had 1st & goal from our 4 & only walked away with a FG. If they came away with 7, running the ball all the way in, it would've been much more of a momentum-shift.

The dumb decision to onside kick cost 3 points. In a game which featured only two scores, that is significant.

EM has made several dubious calls and decisions in his rookie year.

In fact, instead of harping on CP's limitations, the focus should be on EM's decision to play him. The heat for deciding who plays QB should be squarely aimed at the coaches. Either you think they have a better option they are not using, or you agree with their decision to let it ride with CP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dumb decision to onside kick cost 3 points. In a game which featured only two scores, that is significant.

EM has made several dubious calls and decisions in his rookie year.

In fact, instead of harping on CP's limitations, the focus should be on EM's decision to play him. The heat for deciding who plays QB should be squarely aimed at the coaches. Either you think they have a better option they are not using, or you agree with their decision to let it ride with CP.

Part of using Chad I'm sure has to do with the locker room. He can't bench Pennington until it's obvious he's not getting it done or that it's reasonable to believe he's worse than someone else - particularly a rookie.

Once the playoffs become a non-factor it will be more palatable to the team. But try that while winning & before Chad screws up games & he could not only be second-guessed for the decision, but there may have been a league-wide whispering that the Jets bench their players before gigantic LTBE incentives are reached.

Of course, if the way it plays out is that Chad gets benched after/during this coming game, then in effect playing him for 2 extra games cost the Jets $6M on the 2007 salary cap. Ouch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of you guys (and gals), I have calmed down to think rationally, and I still can't think of one (not one) rational excuse to support an on-side kick (on kick-off) in the third quarter when your playing home and have the BEST team in the NFC at zero (count them 0) points. How can anyone justify that that was a "good" call?

And comparing this type if play calling with what herm did, is like comparing apples and oranges. (i.e. risk taking vs. no risk taking). The end result is the same...we lost!

What ever happened to playing good solid hard "basic" football??? Enough with the stupid gadget plays already, run the ball, play within Chad's ability and if you lose you lose, but don't give points away..that's just plain dumb!

As far as Chad's ability, I question this. He has not step-up to be a leader, and at QB that's what you have to be. In fact it apears his own teammates are starting to question it too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of using Chad I'm sure has to do with the locker room. He can't bench Pennington until it's obvious he's not getting it done or that it's reasonable to believe he's worse than someone else - particularly a rookie.

Once the playoffs become a non-factor it will be more palatable to the team. But try that while winning & before Chad screws up games & he could not only be second-guessed for the decision, but there may have been a league-wide whispering that the Jets bench their players before gigantic LTBE incentives are reached.

Of course, if the way it plays out is that Chad gets benched after/during this coming game, then in effect playing him for 2 extra games cost the Jets $6M on the 2007 salary cap. Ouch.

So you are saying that more goes into the decision as to who to start than just passing the ball? Intangibles like team chemistry, ability to run the offense with a rookie OC, and call plays on the fly, and the reality that the playoffs are still possible are all factors? Yeah, i guess so, too.

That's why reading a bunch of posts that say no more than "Chad sucks" is...mmmm...whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying that more goes into the decision as to who to start than just passing the ball? Intangibles like team chemistry, ability to run the offense with a rookie OC, and call plays on the fly, and the reality that the playoffs are still possible are all factors? Yeah, i guess so, too.

That's why reading a bunch of posts that say no more than "Chad sucks" is...mmmm...whatever.

Absolutely. If it was all about physical skills & nothing else, Ryan Leaf would be padding his already HOF-caliber resume over the next 3 years.

But he just doesn't have the gun & that will not change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. If it was all about physical skills & nothing else, Ryan Leaf would be padding his already HOF-caliber resume over the next 3 years.

But he just doesn't have the gun & that will not change.

Sperm, we all knew he didnt have the gun heading into the season.

That hasnt changed. What did happen was two lousy games vs the Brownies and Bears, and the unproductive hate just pours out from the woodwork.

Not too many NFL qbs go thru the season without throwing a clinker or two.

No one is denying that CP sucked yesterday, but let's just say I'm glad some of the more knee-jerk posters arent running the team.

Hopefully, Clemens is being groomed to take over, because Ramsey flat out bites. When the CS decisdes it's time to pull the trigger on a QB change, I'll support that decision. But until then, I'll refrain from dumping on what is currently the best QB on the team, and will continue to skip over the "I hate Chad" posts..

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sperm, we all knew he didnt have the gun heading into the season.

That hasnt changed. What did happen was two lousy games vs the Brownies and Bears, and the unproductive hate just pours out from the woodwork.

Not too many NFL qbs go thru the season without throwing a clinker or two.

No one is denying that CP sucked yesterday, but let's just say I'm glad some of the more knee-jerk posters arent running the team.

Hopefully, Clemens is being groomed to take over, because Ramsey flat out bites. When the CS decisdes it's time to pull the trigger on a QB change, I'll support that decision. But until then, I'll refrain from dumping on what is currently the best QB on the team, and will continue to skip over the "I hate Chad" posts..

:-)

This is my take on it:

  • New, first-time 35-yo HC
  • New, first-time 32-yo OC
  • New, first-time DC
  • Rookie left tackle
  • Rookie center
  • Departed pro-bowler JAbe
  • Departed (former) pro-bowler Mawae
  • Departed pro-bowler Ty Law
  • Departed well-liked (by the players) HC Herm
  • Popular RB Martin on PUP list through at least week 8
  • New defensive scheme
  • New offensive scheme
  • Team is coming off a 4-12 season
  • No big-time FA acquisitions

For Mangini to add to that by benching Chad after beating out the other two (three) in training camp, he might have lost the team right away - something a new HC sometimes never recovers from.

Then we won a bunch of games - four of them against the league's doormats, but no matter; they're still wins. Then we beat NE in their house.

At 5-5 and then the #5 seed, there is NO WAY Mangini could have benched Chad before the Chicago game unless he was injured. Lose the Chicago game with Pennington = we weren't good enough. Lose the Chicago game after benching Pennington & starting Ramsey or Clemens = potentially losing the team.

So given all that, in hindsight, I had no problem with Mangini starting out with Chad, and sticking with him while we were in a playoff hunt. One more loss - particularly vs one of our softie opponents - and the switch becomes palatable (or at least MORE palatable) to all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my take on it:

  • New, first-time 35-yo HC
  • New, first-time 32-yo OC
  • New, first-time DC
  • Rookie left tackle
  • Rookie center
  • Departed pro-bowler JAbe
  • Departed (former) pro-bowler Mawae
  • Departed pro-bowler Ty Law
  • Departed well-liked (by the players) HC Herm
  • Popular RB Martin on PUP list through at least week 8
  • New defensive scheme
  • New offensive scheme
  • Team is coming off a 4-12 season
  • No big-time FA acquisitions

For Mangini to add to that by benching Chad after beating out the other two (three) in training camp, he might have lost the team right away - something a new HC sometimes never recovers from.

Then we won a bunch of games - four of them against the league's doormats, but no matter; they're still wins. Then we beat NE in their house.

At 5-5 and then the #5 seed, there is NO WAY Mangini could have benched Chad before the Chicago game unless he was injured. Lose the Chicago game with Pennington = we weren't good enough. Lose the Chicago game after benching Pennington & starting Ramsey or Clemens = potentially losing the team.

So given all that, in hindsight, I had no problem with Mangini starting out with Chad, and sticking with him while we were in a playoff hunt. One more loss - particularly vs one of our softie opponents - and the switch becomes palatable (or at least MORE palatable) to all.

I like this post so much, I'm giving it the old POTW NOM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my take on it:

  • New, first-time 35-yo HC
  • New, first-time 32-yo OC
  • New, first-time DC
  • Rookie left tackle
  • Rookie center
  • Departed pro-bowler JAbe
  • Departed (former) pro-bowler Mawae
  • Departed pro-bowler Ty Law
  • Departed well-liked (by the players) HC Herm
  • Popular RB Martin on PUP list through at least week 8
  • New defensive scheme
  • New offensive scheme
  • Team is coming off a 4-12 season
  • No big-time FA acquisitions

For Mangini to add to that by benching Chad after beating out the other two (three) in training camp, he might have lost the team right away - something a new HC sometimes never recovers from.

Then we won a bunch of games - four of them against the league's doormats, but no matter; they're still wins. Then we beat NE in their house.

At 5-5 and then the #5 seed, there is NO WAY Mangini could have benched Chad before the Chicago game unless he was injured. Lose the Chicago game with Pennington = we weren't good enough. Lose the Chicago game after benching Pennington & starting Ramsey or Clemens = potentially losing the team.

So given all that, in hindsight, I had no problem with Mangini starting out with Chad, and sticking with him while we were in a playoff hunt. One more loss - particularly vs one of our softie opponents - and the switch becomes palatable (or at least MORE palatable) to all.

great post sperm. However I think that chad would not be our starter if mangini didn't think he was the best candidate. It was late in the preseason beforw mangini announced the starter. chad played well enough to beat the pats & poor enough to lose to da bears.

I agree he should start the next game. If he ****s the bed in the 1st half, sure bring in clemons. chad played well in the 1st half against the bears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my take on it:
  • New, first-time 35-yo HC
  • New, first-time 32-yo OC
  • New, first-time DC
  • Rookie left tackle
  • Rookie center
  • Departed pro-bowler JAbe
  • Departed (former) pro-bowler Mawae
  • Departed pro-bowler Ty Law
  • Departed well-liked (by the players) HC Herm
  • Popular RB Martin on PUP list through at least week 8
  • New defensive scheme
  • New offensive scheme
  • Team is coming off a 4-12 season
  • No big-time FA acquisitions

For Mangini to add to that by benching Chad after beating out the other two (three) in training camp, he might have lost the team right away - something a new HC sometimes never recovers from.

Then we won a bunch of games - four of them against the league's doormats, but no matter; they're still wins. Then we beat NE in their house.

At 5-5 and then the #5 seed, there is NO WAY Mangini could have benched Chad before the Chicago game unless he was injured. Lose the Chicago game with Pennington = we weren't good enough. Lose the Chicago game after benching Pennington & starting Ramsey or Clemens = potentially losing the team.

So given all that, in hindsight, I had no problem with Mangini starting out with Chad, and sticking with him while we were in a playoff hunt. One more loss - particularly vs one of our softie opponents - and the switch becomes palatable (or at least MORE palatable) to all.

This is an excellent post. I don't see why it's any indictment of Pennington. You admit that Mangini would probably lose the team if he pulled Penny now. Why do you think he'd lose the team? Is it because they fear change? Or maybe they'd get pissed off if he played a guy that's considerably worse? I know I would. If they fall below .500 the switch the younger guy makes some sense. As long as he can run the O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF we recover that onside kick, the VAST majority of people would be calling that play genius this morning. Our defense was standing up to them, causing issues for Rex, they rolled the dice at a point in the game where they still had plenty of time to recover if it went the wrong way. Had we recovered it would have been a huge boost and gotten some sorely needed momentum on the Jet's offensive side of the ball. It is the redzone conversions that are the problem, and that is because 1) we don't have a strong passer who can zip the rope in there, 2) we don't have the dominent goal line back (although I see promise in our rb corps) who just pounds those in as a given 3) we don't have that dominating freakish wr/te who we can just lob it in there to who will get up and snatch it.

Now, we don't need ALL of those things, and not many teams have all of those pieces, but if we can pick up one of these needs for next year we will be a much more potent offense coupled with the mangini/schot playcalling-coaching.

I think the Jets creative playcalling is one of the main reasons why in our rebuilding year we are standing where we are at 5-5 with an easy schedule that should get us to 8-9 wins. The fact of the matter is, when you are gutsy and roll the dice, you can look like a hero-onside kick in indy, chad's punt in NE, but of course sometimes you will get burned. Everyone wanted the conservitave old regime gone, lets get excited about the more aggresive new regime!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...