Jump to content

Mangini the Passionless


Darth Vader
 Share

Recommended Posts

OK. I'll disagree with you here. Granted, these are matters of perception and opinion. Here's another take. The disposal of DRob and Vilma has nothing to do with whether or not they are good players. In the 3-4, they suck. In the 4-3, one sucks. It's not a question of "misjudging" the talent. JVil simply can't play 3-4 ILB. If he does well in NO this year, more power to him but it's not because the Jets didn't know what they had.

We can go on and on about play-calling but I will argue that the coaching here did not lose this game. The defense held the Raiders to 13 points in regulation and that included a FG after Leon's muff at the 16 yard line. The offense threw the ball 38 times and ran for over 7 yards a carry. There was no pass/run disconnect. Favre had little time to throw as the offensive line didn't block nearly as well as for the running game.

While everyone is ready to launch with their salvos of anti-coaching staff, I am going to give an example of something that was impressive. Favre throws his second pick in regulation. The Jets held them and got the ball back with enough time to drive the field. This was with less than 2:30 to go. THAT was impressive.

The bottom line for me is this (and it may be different than for you): The coaching staff called a game that gave the players on this team multiple opportunities to make big plays and they did not. Conversely, the players (not the coaches) turned the ball over three times while forcing none. Was Chris Baker open in OT? How about Keller? Was it the coaches' fault or Favre's fault?

The coaching staff did not lose this game. NFL players are expected to execute and these guys did not. They had chances to win this game and didn't come up with the plays. On another note, can we please dispense with this "Throw the ball down the field Schotty" whining? When a pass play is designed, it's not as though all five eligible receivers run five yard routes. There are deep options on most plays. The receiver may not have gotten open. The QB may have not seen him or not have had the time to throw.

Just a thought...you may disagree.

Okay, I'm not giving too much credit to the staff for that at all. The reason we got the ball back it because we finally got aggresive (BECAUSE WE HAD TO) and the reason we drove down the field so quickly is because we were aggresive (BECAUSE WE HAD TO). That was one of my main problems with the game, Favre looked great on that game tying drive when we got aggresive and started throwing the ball downfield, then in OT when WE DON'T HAVE TO be aggresive, Schotty goes back under his shell. Pathetic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another note, can we please dispense with this "Throw the ball down the field Schotty" whining? When a pass play is designed, it's not as though all five eligible receivers run five yard routes. There are deep options on most plays. The receiver may not have gotten open. The QB may have not seen him or not have had the time to throw.

Just a thought...you may disagree.

Actually that was the puzzling part, looked to me when Favre had tiime and extended the play the recievers were all usually still within 10 yards of the line and nobody went deeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually that was the puzzling part, looked to me when Favre had tiime and extended the play the recievers were all usually still within 10 yards of the line and nobody went deeper.

Baker was deeper than 10 yards (looked like 15-20 to me) but that's hard to say on most plays unless you're at the game or have coaches film (all 22).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually that was the puzzling part, looked to me when Favre had tiime and extended the play the recievers were all usually still within 10 yards of the line and nobody went deeper.

Yup, it was like a Paul ****ing Hackett playbook.

Remember the first drive when all we did was check down to Baker. The Raiders had EVERYONE up in the box, basically begging us to throw downfield and we didn't even try.

Seriously when you're in an empty set and your getting defensive looks like that you MUST be able to exploit some 1 on 1 matchups.

Edited by Irish Jet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was one of my main problems with the game, Favre looked great on that game tying drive when we got aggresive and started throwing the ball downfield, then in OT when WE DON'T HAVE TO be aggresive, Schotty goes back under his shell. Pathetic!

How about we blast FAVRE for playing like crap? OH wait, he's Brett Favre. He can do anything....If he was anybody else, everyone would be screaming for the backup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy is totally emotionless.

I cant stand him to tell the truth. I would just really like him to say, once, you know what, I sucked today. My team played like **** and it falls on me because I am the HC. I need to do a better job of getting this team prepared.

But, nope. Its all about what we did well.

Hey Mangini, you lost to the ****ing Raiders! Does it matter what you did well when you lost the ****ing Raiders.

Except for when I'm climbing I'm an emotional person. I'd LOVE to see some passion out there on the field myself. Can you picture Cowher last week if he were our coach? :rl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. I'll disagree with you here. Granted, these are matters of perception and opinion. Here's another take. The disposal of DRob and Vilma has nothing to do with whether or not they are good players. In the 3-4, they suck. In the 4-3, one sucks. It's not a question of "misjudging" the talent. JVil simply can't play 3-4 ILB. If he does well in NO this year, more power to him but it's not because the Jets didn't know what they had.

We can go on and on about play-calling but I will argue that the coaching here did not lose this game. The defense held the Raiders to 13 points in regulation and that included a FG after Leon's muff at the 16 yard line. The offense threw the ball 38 times and ran for over 7 yards a carry. There was no pass/run disconnect. Favre had little time to throw as the offensive line didn't block nearly as well as for the running game.

While everyone is ready to launch with their salvos of anti-coaching staff, I am going to give an example of something that was impressive. Favre throws his second pick in regulation. The Jets held them and got the ball back with enough time to drive the field. This was with less than 2:30 to go. THAT was impressive.

The bottom line for me is this (and it may be different than for you): The coaching staff called a game that gave the players on this team multiple opportunities to make big plays and they did not. Conversely, the players (not the coaches) turned the ball over three times while forcing none. Was Chris Baker open in OT? How about Keller? Was it the coaches' fault or Favre's fault?

The coaching staff did not lose this game. NFL players are expected to execute and these guys did not. They had chances to win this game and didn't come up with the plays. On another note, can we please dispense with this "Throw the ball down the field Schotty" whining? When a pass play is designed, it's not as though all five eligible receivers run five yard routes. There are deep options on most plays. The receiver may not have gotten open. The QB may have not seen him or not have had the time to throw.

Just a thought...you may disagree.

You make good points, MM. My main issue with the coaching staff's game plan is at the beginning and end of game offensively.

The beginning of the game with the spread offense looked gimicky (1 run 10 passes) and netted meager yards. So unless the staff wanted to increase Favre's completion percentage it was a woeful plan. Plus, it nearly got Favre killed because Mini-Schott was slow to react to Ryan's counter by blitzing.

For the end of the game, the coaching staff is at fault for not using playaction to take advantage of the Raiders aggressiveness and use of 8 men in the box. That's not the players' fault or Favre's fault. That was Mangini and Mini-Schott's fault.

The coaching staff had no answer for what the Raiders were doing defensively in OT. In fact, on the game winning drive, the Raiders used playaction to gain a big play. The Raiders took advantage of the Jets aggressiveness, but the Jets did not do the same.

Who's fault is that? Again, the game is tied for OT so any turnovers, bad play calling, mistakes, etc. are a wash. So the coaching staff had a chance to give their team the best chance at victory and Mangini & co. failed miserably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, let me add: Mangini & his coaching staff has been together for 3 years. Pretty unheard of for the Jets to be together that long without coordinator or HC change. They are 17-22. Mangini has not proved that he is a competent HC and time is running out.

Mangini was hired purely on potential because his resume was so meager. But there's really no potential left and he has to actually produce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually he's a very good speaker. "Hey Eric can you tell us the first five plays and what defense we are playing this week." Can we have the exact injury of Jerricho and what the odds he plays" We had enough of that with Herm..The defense gave up 16 points in 5 periods of football so why would you mention Sutton? I'll bet you Mangini's IQ is close to double yours genius..

Yeah - he's a great speaker. Captivating. Your appreciation of his oratory skills does help define you though. I said IF Sutton's the issue but you got too busy defending his units 16 point shut down of that offensive powerhouse known as the Oakland Raiders and their steaming 24th ranked machine. IQ's - I'll keep mine and you can have yours ok zippy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What bothered the heck out of me was in yesterday's paper Mangini was quoted as saying he was happy

pretty much the point. how can he give the impression of being happy? how is that what it is said or emphasized ?

Am I missing something?

Am I a 5 year old that needs to be told the world is good and everyone is happy all the time?

WTF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who's fault is that? Again, the game is tied for OT so any turnovers, bad play calling, mistakes, etc. are a wash. So the coaching staff had a chance to give their team the best chance at victory and Mangini & co. failed miserably.

I am going to offer up that while there were no play-action calls (I am agreeing with you) in OT, there were still opportunities that were not executed in the pass plays that were called. Baker falling down was the most egregious. I am not, by any means, absolving Schottenheimer of the responsibility of the playcalling but I think that in this case the players were put in a position to win and did not execute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about we blast FAVRE for playing like crap? OH wait, he's Brett Favre. He can do anything....If he was anybody else, everyone would be screaming for the backup.

I'm far from Brett Favre's biggest fan I'll have you know. He did play like crap, BUT that doesn't change the fact that he's handicapped with some AWFUL playcalling. Watching the game again, we ran play action a grand total of ONCE in OT. That was the play where Baker fell. Needless to say as soon as the Raiders get the ball, they run play action, QB makes a play and they win the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to offer up that while there were no play-action calls (I am agreeing with you) in OT, there were still opportunities that were not executed in the pass plays that were called. Baker falling down was the most egregious. I am not, by any means, absolving Schottenheimer of the responsibility of the playcalling but I think that in this case the players were put in a position to win and did not execute.

I understand the Baker falling down was big and stuff like that happens (although I fault Baker somewhat for shuffling his feet because he should have been stationary with Favre moving out of the pocket). BUT I do have to criticize the coaching on that play, but for one limited reason: play personnel decision.

It should have been Keller rather than Baker on that route. Not saying that Keller would not have fallen there (although he may have remained stationary there, we'd never know), but it would have had a greater "big play" potential with Keller because Baker had daylight to the endzone there. Baker is not agile enough or quick enough to score there, but Keller is and would have. What did they use a 1st rounder on Keller and not use him in that situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...