The NFL has evolved beyond "Ground and Pound" - Page 2 - Jets Insider.com Forums

Goodfellaz · 03-03-2012, 10:31 PM

[QUOTE=sg3;4383099]new poll request please....

Should Schroy48 be allowed to continue to start new threads and polls

a) yes

b) NO NO GOD NO[/QUOTE]

B x 1000

Cornfed · 03-04-2012, 08:41 AM

[QUOTE=Apache 51;4383169]You actually have to Ground and Pound, to be Ground and Pound.[/QUOTE]

Yes! I don't think the options for this poll are complete. I'm not saying we have to air it out a hundred times per game, but was last year's team even built for ground and pound? Just saying that's "your thing" doesn't make it true

I think we need to use what we have and play to our strengths in the short term while making personel moves to evolve into what we want to be in the long term

But stomping our feet when we throw too much in some games and saying "wah...ground and pound" is stupid

Dunnie · 03-04-2012, 08:57 AM

I like the physicality of the ground and pound. Unfortunately, this aspect of the game has become less important these days due to the recent changes Goodell has made. QBs have more time to throw and receivers have more space to catch ... Thus making the passing game far more efficient than running the ball ... At least when compared to 5 years ago.

I think we need to continue to improve on D, and also in the passing game ... Because teams like the Patriots can score will, we need to be able answer through the air as well.

I don't buy into the idea of keeping the other team off the field via running the ball ... Brady scores nearly every series ... If your D cannot stop a high powered air attack, running the ball to keep the opposing teams offense on the sideline is a flawed approach that is reactive in nature. I want our offense to scare other teams. Defenses are simply less effective against air attacks now.. To think otherwise is bury your head in the sand.

freestater · 03-04-2012, 09:01 AM

"the NFL has evolved beyond "Ground and Pound". I know I'm not supposed to say this, but Schroy, that is some dumbass sh*t right there.

The NFL, and the strategies employed by the coaching staffs continually evolve. That's why you currently have all the air-it-out teams succeeding. But what have coaches done to counter the move? Suddenly, we have a bunch of teams realizing that they need speedy and competent defensive-back depth. As these teams have committed to their DBs, their run-D suffers due to undersized defenders ready mostly for passing downs. As more of the league starts to look like this, some innovators will start to do some things that don't subscribe to the Coryall methodology. (Try real hard, and you might think of a team that's starting to go to a 2-TE set quite a bit) As big TEs and FBs start to see their rebirth, you're going to see a lot more teams start to rely on a "gound and pound" offense. In fact, this is a constant oscillation that has defined this game since the introduction of the forward pass in 1906. You're just too myopic to notice.

Sourceworx · 03-04-2012, 09:03 AM

[QUOTE=Schroy48;4383072]It's pretty obvious that the NFL is (howver slowly) evolving.

The profit motive is always there, the entertainment factor is always there as well...

But, what Lord "I determine the integrity of the NFL" [B]God[/B]dell wants by now is something pretty clear:

1) He wants a CLEAN game. Not only in appearance with the disappearance of mud and grass, but, in the play on the field. He doesn't want any Jack Tatum's, Ted Hendrick's, Lester Hayes', "Hollywood Henderson's", or now - "Bounty Hunter's" down in New Orleans. Maybe that's part of the reason why in the last 10 years the Raiders and Cowboys havent done that well in the playoffs.

2) He wants a faster game with fewer penalties. More like the old AFL or Arena League. Passing = excitement. The Packers of 2011 would have been unrecognizable back in 1961, 1971, 1981, or 1991. Lombardi would have never allowed Favre or Rogers to air it out like now.

3) And, to maximize your passing game, you need to have a QB who is healthy. So, God forbid you lay a pinky on the stars who throw the pigskin now. And, you better have the ability to have a vertical game. If you do, the refs will help you - trust us.

If it were up to Goddell, every Super Bowl would cover the "over", and be a cleanly fought game with enough points to keep every borderline fan glued to the tv when commercials aren't on. No blowouts. Let the refs make the calls to help give Goddell that "close clean game" he wants. Don't forget the SB refs are the best after all.

The man does not want a vicious defense, that might take out a star QB in the first quarter, and a ball-control passer on the other side who only passes when forced to and let's his D eat up the clock. It's just bad for ratings. Ironically, that's how Joe Willie changed the league, but, that's another story.

I submit to you two ideas:

I) Sanchez might be made to order for Rex' system under Sporano, but, it's not what the NFL wants and the NFL will do everything it can to make sure that "Super Bowl" doesn't happen.

II) Rex, as much as I like him, especially after the special-ed Belichickesque "Manginious", may NOT be the coach we need for 2013 and beyond. We will need another offensive system, closer to that of the old AFL or today's Arena League, and probably a faster defense overall, that is less "Baltimore Part II" and more J-E-T-S - as in FAST :yes:

Discuss.[/QUOTE]

I submit a question for you:

Were you born a moron, or did you have to work at it?

Dunnie · 03-04-2012, 09:05 AM

[QUOTE=freestater;4383431]"the NFL has evolved beyond "Ground and Pound". I know I'm not supposed to say this, but Schroy, that is some dumbass sh*t right there.

The NFL, and the strategies employed by the coaching staffs continually evolve. That's why you currently have all the air-it-out teams succeeding. But what have coaches done to counter the move? Suddenly, we have a bunch of teams realizing that they need speedy and competent defensive-back depth. As these teams have committed to their DBs, their run-D suffers due to undersized defenders ready mostly for passing downs. As more of the league starts to look like this, some innovators will start to do some things that don't subscribe to the Coryall methodology. (Try real hard, and you might think of a team that's starting to go to a 2-TE set quite a bit) As big TEs and FBs start to see their rebirth, you're going to see a lot more teams start to rely on a "gound and pound" offense. In fact, this is a constant oscillation that has defined this game since the introduction of the forward pass in 1906. You're just too myopic to notice.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately ... Player safety rules recently implemented have unbalanced the field in an unprecedented way... Almost to the degree of being funny. Passing for 5000 yards will become commonplace ... Running for 2000 will not.

freestater · 03-04-2012, 09:16 AM

[QUOTE=Dunnie;4383434]Unfortunately ... Player safety rules recently implemented have unbalanced the field in an unprecedented way... Almost to the degree of being funny. Passing for 5000 yards will become commonplace ... Running for 2000 will not.[/QUOTE]

there will always be a strategic advantage to bucking trends. Some good coaches will always be around to take advantage of odds stacked a certain way. To your example though, neither will be "commonplace". That's just ridiculous.

Savage69 · 03-04-2012, 09:27 AM

[QUOTE=freestater;4383439]there will always be a strategic advantage to bucking trends. Some good coaches will always be around to take advantage of odds stacked a certain way. To your example though, neither will be "commonplace". That's just ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

If all teams played in perfect weather plus domes in bad weather the passing game could flourish.. But a good running game is needed in bad weather plus it opens up the passing game for play action by drawing in the DB's to stop the run..

Jet Blast · 03-04-2012, 09:30 AM

Let's not let the hype mislead us and get hung up on semantics.

The term "ground and pound" should not be taken so literally. It's just a catch phrase, albeit one that Rex loves to toss around. I don't believe for a moment that it means the offense won't have a passing game (The fact that our passing game sucked is another issue). It is an offense that stresses winning the battle in the trenches and having a strong running game. Everything else is built upon that. And that's a good prescription for ANY offense.

Dunnie · 03-04-2012, 11:22 AM

[QUOTE=Jet Blast;4383450]Let's not let the hype mislead us and get hung up on semantics.

The term "ground and pound" should not be taken so literally. It's just a catch phrase, albeit one that Rex loves to toss around. I don't believe for a moment that it means the offense that won't have a passing game (The fact that our passing game sucked is another issue). It is an offense that stresses winning the battle in the trenches and having a strong running game. Everything else is built upon that. And that's a good prescription for ANY offense.[/QUOTE]

I could get behind this.

Schroy48 · 03-04-2012, 01:28 PM

[QUOTE=freestater;4383431]"the NFL has evolved beyond "Ground and Pound". I know I'm not supposed to say this, but Schroy, that is some dumbass sh*t right there.

.[/QUOTE]

Then don't say it *chmuck.

Can't you simply say "Schroy, I disagree, here's why"? :rolleyes:

My main problem with the "Ground and Pound" in 2012 is this:

If we are down by 14 with 6 minutes to go, we have to score twice and we have to probably get 160 yards in doing it. The offensive unit doesnt really know from "no huddles" because they havent been used all season. There is a good chance there will be penalties called against us if we go to this. In addition, the running backs will want the ball claiming they can get 5-10 yards per carry, and we know that's NOT happening. The opposing D will be looking for the pass, but, will be guarding for the run. So, they'll be closer to the trenches and we would have a perfect opportunity to get a long gain with some vertical down-field passing. But, that's not our "forte". Long passes won't be accurate because theyre simply not used very much.

In other words, with a "Ground and Pound" if we fall behind by more than 10 in the 4th there is an excellent chance we'll lose. With the "Ground and Pound" we'll go 10-6 instead of winning a division at 12-4 - because twice we couldnt score fast enough in the 4th Q in at least 2 games.

I want to win divisions. I want to have only 2 playoff games to play.

I want to GO to a Super Bowl. In 2012, I believe the "Ground and Pound' will take me to the playoffs - maybe - but not to a Super Bowl.

Dimitri_0515 · 03-04-2012, 01:30 PM

[QUOTE=Schroy48;4383571]Then don't say it *chmuck.

Can't you simply say "Schroy, I disagree, here's why"? :rolleyes:

My main problem with the "Ground and Pound" in 2012 is this:

If we are down by 14 with 6 minutes to go, we have to score twice and we have to probably get 160 yards in doing it. The offensive unit doesnt really know from "no huddles" because they havent been used all season. There is a good chance there will be penalties called against us if we go to this. In addition, the running backs will want the ball claiming they can get 5-10 yards per carry, and we know that's NOT happening. The opposing D will be looking for the pass, but, will be guarding for the run. So, they'll be closer to the trenches and we would have a perfect opportunity to get a long gainwith some vertical down-field passing. But, that's not our "forte". Long passes won't be accurate because theyre simply not used very much.

In other words, with a "Ground and Pound" if we fall behind by more than 10 in the 4th there is an excellent chance we'll lose. With the "Ground and Pound" we'll go 10-6 instead of winning a division at 12-4 - because twice we couldnt score fast enough in the 4th Q in at least 2 games.

i want to win divisions. I want to have only 2 playoff games to play.

I want to GO to a Super Bowl. In 2012, I believe the "Ground and Pound' will take me to the playoffs - maybe - but not to a Super Bowl.[/QUOTE]

Well Sanchez has done it before. In fact he's done it more than anyone else in the league the past 2 years. How bout that homeslice?

Schroy48 · 03-04-2012, 01:33 PM

[QUOTE=Dimitri_0515;4383572]Well Sanchez has done it before. In fact he's done it more than anyone else in the league the past 2 years. How bout that homeslice?[/QUOTE]

Really? You mean Eli didnt lead the league in 4th Q comebacks this past season? You mean we won our divisions the past three years? You mean Sanchez did this in the regular season?

Because that is what I'm talking about - homeslice ;)

Jet Nut · 03-04-2012, 01:37 PM

[QUOTE=bigdanNJ;4383097]well if the jets want to get to and win the SB, the better air it out. ground and pound is done in the NFL. time for rex to wake up[/QUOTE]

Which explains how the Jets were as close as it gets to the SB 2 of the last 3 years. :rolleyes:

Jets Things · 03-04-2012, 01:42 PM

[IMG]http://famvin.org/en/files/2007/10/garbage_dump1.jpg[/IMG]

Schroy48 · 03-04-2012, 01:44 PM

[QUOTE=Jet Nut;4383580]Which explains how the Jets were as close as it gets to the SB 2 of the last 3 years. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

So, you would rather ensure we continue to get close, rather than something better? That's great logic.

1) We lucked into the playoffs in '09 and we couldnt score fast enough in the 4th to get to the Super Bowl vs. the Colts.

2) We needed to get just 1 yard to get to the SB last year and, in part, we didnt because the Steelers KNEW Schitty didnt trust Sanchez possibly throwing the ball on every down with EVERYTHING on the line. Weeb trusted Namath (who did throw int's), but Rex doesnt trust Sanchez.

So, how do you expect to ever win a SB?

ASG0531 · 03-04-2012, 01:59 PM

The issue is kind of moot right now because "Ground and Pound" is the only option there is right now given the QB situation. If Sanchez somehow improves by leaps and bounds and starts proving that he can score a lot of points with a more passing-oriented attack, the Jets will stop grounding and start airing pretty quickly. Your philosophy should fit your strengths.

jetssjumets · 03-04-2012, 02:49 PM

[QUOTE=Schroy48;4383585]So, you would rather ensure we continue to get close, rather than something better? That's great logic.

1) We lucked into the playoffs in '09 and we couldnt score fast enough in the 4th to get to the Super Bowl vs. the Colts.

2) We needed to get just 1 yard to get to the SB last year and, in part, we didnt because the Steelers KNEW Schitty didnt trust Sanchez possibly throwing the ball on every down with EVERYTHING on the line. Weeb trusted Namath (who did throw int's), but Rex doesnt trust Sanchez.

So, how do you expect to ever win a SB?[/QUOTE]

The AFCG unraveled after the missed FG and the injury to Greene who was gashing the Colts, which blows up your theory.

Now, please, stop posting/starting threads.

Jet Nut · 03-04-2012, 02:54 PM

[QUOTE=Schroy48;4383585]So, you would rather ensure we continue to get close, rather than something better? That's great logic.

1) We lucked into the playoffs in '09 and we couldnt score fast enough in the 4th to get to the Super Bowl vs. the Colts.

2) We needed to get just 1 yard to get to the SB last year and, in part, we didnt because the Steelers KNEW Schitty didnt trust Sanchez possibly throwing the ball on every down with EVERYTHING on the line. Weeb trusted Namath (who did throw int's), but Rex doesnt trust Sanchez.

So, how do you expect to ever win a SB?[/QUOTE]

Your use of logic is mind numbing.

Where did I say anything like close is all I want? How stupid is this comeback by the idiot "I hate Sanchez" contingent? Stating a fact, the Jets were as close as it gets 2x's to show that ground and pound can work somehow translates into, "Im happy with getting close". Try something different, something that makes sense to anyone with a brain.

Your 2 stupid reasons to kill any QB are laughable. You're right, it's a rookie and 2nd year QBs fault that we didn't go the extra game to the SB. While at the same time its of no credit to that same QB that they got to that close to the SB.

It must be comforting to be so numb that you can find a person to blame no matter how stupid it is to blame that person. Blaming one person makes it so much easier to explain why a team didn't make it to to the SB. When in doubt, blame the QB. It's what retards have been doing since the dawn of football. :yes:

Jet Nut · 03-04-2012, 02:57 PM

[QUOTE=jetssjumets;4383635]The AFCG unraveled after the missed FG and the injury to Greene who was gashing the Colts, which blows up your theory.

Now, please, stop posting/starting threads.[/QUOTE]

And losing a handfull of CB's in Indy. Having the lead at half and passing the ball well in the 2nd half means nothing to the clueless.

Letting the Steelers run all over the Jets 24 points in the first half also had nothing to do with the loss and clearly was all Sanchez's fault :eek:

View Poll Results: The NFL has evolved beyond the "Ground and Pound"
We need to evolve along with what has been the trends on both offense and defense	16	45.71%
We need to get back to "our thing": The Ground and Pound (regardless of trends)	19	54.29%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

03-04-2012, 08:57 AM	#23
Dunnie still waiting ... All League Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 4,219	I like the physicality of the ground and pound. Unfortunately, this aspect of the game has become less important these days due to the recent changes Goodell has made. QBs have more time to throw and receivers have more space to catch ... Thus making the passing game far more efficient than running the ball ... At least when compared to 5 years ago. I think we need to continue to improve on D, and also in the passing game ... Because teams like the Patriots can score will, we need to be able answer through the air as well. I don't buy into the idea of keeping the other team off the field via running the ball ... Brady scores nearly every series ... If your D cannot stop a high powered air attack, running the ball to keep the opposing teams offense on the sideline is a flawed approach that is reactive in nature. I want our offense to scare other teams. Defenses are simply less effective against air attacks now.. To think otherwise is bury your head in the sand. Last edited by Dunnie; 03-04-2012 at 09:01 AM.

03-04-2012, 09:30 AM	#29
Jet Blast is full of status All League Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Forked River, NJ Posts: 4,503	Let's not let the hype mislead us and get hung up on semantics. The term "ground and pound" should not be taken so literally. It's just a catch phrase, albeit one that Rex loves to toss around. I don't believe for a moment that it means the offense won't have a passing game (The fact that our passing game sucked is another issue). It is an offense that stresses winning the battle in the trenches and having a strong running game. Everything else is built upon that. And that's a good prescription for ANY offense. Last edited by Jet Blast; 03-04-2012 at 11:29 AM.

03-04-2012, 01:28 PM	#31
Schroy48 aka JETMAN73 - Your friendly neighbor in the next section ;) Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,910	[QUOTE=freestater;4383431]"the NFL has evolved beyond "Ground and Pound". I know I'm not supposed to say this, but Schroy, that is some dumbass sht right there. .[/QUOTE] Then don't say it chmuck. Can't you simply say "Schroy, I disagree, here's why"? :rolleyes: My main problem with the "Ground and Pound" in 2012 is this: If we are down by 14 with 6 minutes to go, we have to score twice and we have to probably get 160 yards in doing it. The offensive unit doesnt really know from "no huddles" because they havent been used all season. There is a good chance there will be penalties called against us if we go to this. In addition, the running backs will want the ball claiming they can get 5-10 yards per carry, and we know that's NOT happening. The opposing D will be looking for the pass, but, will be guarding for the run. So, they'll be closer to the trenches and we would have a perfect opportunity to get a long gain with some vertical down-field passing. But, that's not our "forte". Long passes won't be accurate because theyre simply not used very much. In other words, with a "Ground and Pound" if we fall behind by more than 10 in the 4th there is an excellent chance we'll lose. With the "Ground and Pound" we'll go 10-6 instead of winning a division at 12-4 - because twice we couldnt score fast enough in the 4th Q in at least 2 games. I want to win divisions. I want to have only 2 playoff games to play. I want to GO to a Super Bowl. In 2012, I believe the "Ground and Pound' will take me to the playoffs - maybe - but not to a Super Bowl. Last edited by Schroy48; 03-04-2012 at 01:30 PM.

03-04-2012, 02:54 PM	#39
Jet Nut Wise madness is better than foolish sanity.... Hall Of Fame Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Manalapan Posts: 11,377	[QUOTE=Schroy48;4383585]So, you would rather ensure we continue to get close, rather than something better? That's great logic. 1) We lucked into the playoffs in '09 and we couldnt score fast enough in the 4th to get to the Super Bowl vs. the Colts. 2) We needed to get just 1 yard to get to the SB last year and, in part, we didnt because the Steelers KNEW Schitty didnt trust Sanchez possibly throwing the ball on every down with EVERYTHING on the line. Weeb trusted Namath (who did throw int's), but Rex doesnt trust Sanchez. So, how do you expect to ever win a SB?[/QUOTE] Your use of logic is mind numbing. Where did I say anything like close is all I want? How stupid is this comeback by the idiot "I hate Sanchez" contingent? Stating a fact, the Jets were as close as it gets 2x's to show that ground and pound can work somehow translates into, "Im happy with getting close". Try something different, something that makes sense to anyone with a brain. Your 2 stupid reasons to kill any QB are laughable. You're right, it's a rookie and 2nd year QBs fault that we didn't go the extra game to the SB. While at the same time its of no credit to that same QB that they got to that close to the SB. It must be comforting to be so numb that you can find a person to blame no matter how stupid it is to blame that person. Blaming one person makes it so much easier to explain why a team didn't make it to to the SB. When in doubt, blame the QB. It's what retards have been doing since the dawn of football. :yes: Last edited by Jet Nut; 03-04-2012 at 03:02 PM.

03-03-2012, 10:31 PM	#21
Goodfellaz Gettin' a God damn snack... Practice Squad Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: North Jersey Posts: 377	[QUOTE=sg3;4383099]new poll request please.... Should Schroy48 be allowed to continue to start new threads and polls a) yes b) NO NO GOD NO[/QUOTE] B x 1000

03-04-2012, 08:41 AM	#22
Cornfed Veteran Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,376	[QUOTE=Apache 51;4383169]You actually have to Ground and Pound, to be Ground and Pound.[/QUOTE] Yes! I don't think the options for this poll are complete. I'm not saying we have to air it out a hundred times per game, but was last year's team even built for ground and pound? Just saying that's "your thing" doesn't make it true I think we need to use what we have and play to our strengths in the short term while making personel moves to evolve into what we want to be in the long term But stomping our feet when we throw too much in some games and saying "wah...ground and pound" is stupid

03-04-2012, 09:01 AM	#24
freestater we gonna lay around the shanty, Mama, and put a good buzz on Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 13,525	"the NFL has evolved beyond "Ground and Pound". I know I'm not supposed to say this, but Schroy, that is some dumbass sh*t right there. The NFL, and the strategies employed by the coaching staffs continually evolve. That's why you currently have all the air-it-out teams succeeding. But what have coaches done to counter the move? Suddenly, we have a bunch of teams realizing that they need speedy and competent defensive-back depth. As these teams have committed to their DBs, their run-D suffers due to undersized defenders ready mostly for passing downs. As more of the league starts to look like this, some innovators will start to do some things that don't subscribe to the Coryall methodology. (Try real hard, and you might think of a team that's starting to go to a 2-TE set quite a bit) As big TEs and FBs start to see their rebirth, you're going to see a lot more teams start to rely on a "gound and pound" offense. In fact, this is a constant oscillation that has defined this game since the introduction of the forward pass in 1906. You're just too myopic to notice.

03-04-2012, 09:03 AM	#25
Sourceworx Hall Of Fame Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Long Island Posts: 13,454	[QUOTE=Schroy48;4383072]It's pretty obvious that the NFL is (howver slowly) evolving. The profit motive is always there, the entertainment factor is always there as well... But, what Lord "I determine the integrity of the NFL" [B]God[/B]dell wants by now is something pretty clear: 1) He wants a CLEAN game. Not only in appearance with the disappearance of mud and grass, but, in the play on the field. He doesn't want any Jack Tatum's, Ted Hendrick's, Lester Hayes', "Hollywood Henderson's", or now - "Bounty Hunter's" down in New Orleans. Maybe that's part of the reason why in the last 10 years the Raiders and Cowboys havent done that well in the playoffs. 2) He wants a faster game with fewer penalties. More like the old AFL or Arena League. Passing = excitement. The Packers of 2011 would have been unrecognizable back in 1961, 1971, 1981, or 1991. Lombardi would have never allowed Favre or Rogers to air it out like now. 3) And, to maximize your passing game, you need to have a QB who is healthy. So, God forbid you lay a pinky on the stars who throw the pigskin now. And, you better have the ability to have a vertical game. If you do, the refs will help you - trust us. If it were up to Goddell, every Super Bowl would cover the "over", and be a cleanly fought game with enough points to keep every borderline fan glued to the tv when commercials aren't on. No blowouts. Let the refs make the calls to help give Goddell that "close clean game" he wants. Don't forget the SB refs are the best after all. The man does not want a vicious defense, that might take out a star QB in the first quarter, and a ball-control passer on the other side who only passes when forced to and let's his D eat up the clock. It's just bad for ratings. Ironically, that's how Joe Willie changed the league, but, that's another story. I submit to you two ideas: I) Sanchez might be made to order for Rex' system under Sporano, but, it's not what the NFL wants and the NFL will do everything it can to make sure that "Super Bowl" doesn't happen. II) Rex, as much as I like him, especially after the special-ed Belichickesque "Manginious", may NOT be the coach we need for 2013 and beyond. We will need another offensive system, closer to that of the old AFL or today's Arena League, and probably a faster defense overall, that is less "Baltimore Part II" and more J-E-T-S - as in FAST :yes: Discuss.[/QUOTE] I submit a question for you: Were you born a moron, or did you have to work at it?

03-04-2012, 09:05 AM	#26
Dunnie still waiting ... All League Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 4,219	[QUOTE=freestater;4383431]"the NFL has evolved beyond "Ground and Pound". I know I'm not supposed to say this, but Schroy, that is some dumbass sh*t right there. The NFL, and the strategies employed by the coaching staffs continually evolve. That's why you currently have all the air-it-out teams succeeding. But what have coaches done to counter the move? Suddenly, we have a bunch of teams realizing that they need speedy and competent defensive-back depth. As these teams have committed to their DBs, their run-D suffers due to undersized defenders ready mostly for passing downs. As more of the league starts to look like this, some innovators will start to do some things that don't subscribe to the Coryall methodology. (Try real hard, and you might think of a team that's starting to go to a 2-TE set quite a bit) As big TEs and FBs start to see their rebirth, you're going to see a lot more teams start to rely on a "gound and pound" offense. In fact, this is a constant oscillation that has defined this game since the introduction of the forward pass in 1906. You're just too myopic to notice.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately ... Player safety rules recently implemented have unbalanced the field in an unprecedented way... Almost to the degree of being funny. Passing for 5000 yards will become commonplace ... Running for 2000 will not.

03-04-2012, 09:16 AM	#27
freestater we gonna lay around the shanty, Mama, and put a good buzz on Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 13,525	[QUOTE=Dunnie;4383434]Unfortunately ... Player safety rules recently implemented have unbalanced the field in an unprecedented way... Almost to the degree of being funny. Passing for 5000 yards will become commonplace ... Running for 2000 will not.[/QUOTE] there will always be a strategic advantage to bucking trends. Some good coaches will always be around to take advantage of odds stacked a certain way. To your example though, neither will be "commonplace". That's just ridiculous.

03-04-2012, 09:27 AM	#28
Savage69 Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 39,364	[QUOTE=freestater;4383439]there will always be a strategic advantage to bucking trends. Some good coaches will always be around to take advantage of odds stacked a certain way. To your example though, neither will be "commonplace". That's just ridiculous.[/QUOTE] If all teams played in perfect weather plus domes in bad weather the passing game could flourish.. But a good running game is needed in bad weather plus it opens up the passing game for play action by drawing in the DB's to stop the run..

03-04-2012, 11:22 AM	#30
Dunnie still waiting ... All League Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 4,219	[QUOTE=Jet Blast;4383450]Let's not let the hype mislead us and get hung up on semantics. The term "ground and pound" should not be taken so literally. It's just a catch phrase, albeit one that Rex loves to toss around. I don't believe for a moment that it means the offense that won't have a passing game (The fact that our passing game sucked is another issue). It is an offense that stresses winning the battle in the trenches and having a strong running game. Everything else is built upon that. And that's a good prescription for ANY offense.[/QUOTE] I could get behind this.

03-04-2012, 01:30 PM	#32
Dimitri_0515 Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 11,182	[QUOTE=Schroy48;4383571]Then don't say it *chmuck. Can't you simply say "Schroy, I disagree, here's why"? :rolleyes: My main problem with the "Ground and Pound" in 2012 is this: If we are down by 14 with 6 minutes to go, we have to score twice and we have to probably get 160 yards in doing it. The offensive unit doesnt really know from "no huddles" because they havent been used all season. There is a good chance there will be penalties called against us if we go to this. In addition, the running backs will want the ball claiming they can get 5-10 yards per carry, and we know that's NOT happening. The opposing D will be looking for the pass, but, will be guarding for the run. So, they'll be closer to the trenches and we would have a perfect opportunity to get a long gainwith some vertical down-field passing. But, that's not our "forte". Long passes won't be accurate because theyre simply not used very much. In other words, with a "Ground and Pound" if we fall behind by more than 10 in the 4th there is an excellent chance we'll lose. With the "Ground and Pound" we'll go 10-6 instead of winning a division at 12-4 - because twice we couldnt score fast enough in the 4th Q in at least 2 games. i want to win divisions. I want to have only 2 playoff games to play. I want to GO to a Super Bowl. In 2012, I believe the "Ground and Pound' will take me to the playoffs - maybe - but not to a Super Bowl.[/QUOTE] Well Sanchez has done it before. In fact he's done it more than anyone else in the league the past 2 years. How bout that homeslice?

03-04-2012, 01:33 PM	#33
Schroy48 aka JETMAN73 - Your friendly neighbor in the next section ;) Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,910	[QUOTE=Dimitri_0515;4383572]Well Sanchez has done it before. In fact he's done it more than anyone else in the league the past 2 years. How bout that homeslice?[/QUOTE] Really? You mean Eli didnt lead the league in 4th Q comebacks this past season? You mean we won our divisions the past three years? You mean Sanchez did this in the regular season? Because that is what I'm talking about - homeslice ;)

03-04-2012, 01:37 PM	#34
Jet Nut Wise madness is better than foolish sanity.... Hall Of Fame Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Manalapan Posts: 11,377	[QUOTE=bigdanNJ;4383097]well if the jets want to get to and win the SB, the better air it out. ground and pound is done in the NFL. time for rex to wake up[/QUOTE] Which explains how the Jets were as close as it gets to the SB 2 of the last 3 years. :rolleyes:

03-04-2012, 01:42 PM	#35
Jets Things All Pro Join Date: May 2003 Location: 742 Evergreen Terrace Posts: 9,484	[IMG]http://famvin.org/en/files/2007/10/garbage_dump1.jpg[/IMG]

03-04-2012, 01:44 PM	#36
Schroy48 aka JETMAN73 - Your friendly neighbor in the next section ;) Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 1,910	[QUOTE=Jet Nut;4383580]Which explains how the Jets were as close as it gets to the SB 2 of the last 3 years. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] So, you would rather ensure we continue to get close, rather than something better? That's great logic. 1) We lucked into the playoffs in '09 and we couldnt score fast enough in the 4th to get to the Super Bowl vs. the Colts. 2) We needed to get just 1 yard to get to the SB last year and, in part, we didnt because the Steelers KNEW Schitty didnt trust Sanchez possibly throwing the ball on every down with EVERYTHING on the line. Weeb trusted Namath (who did throw int's), but Rex doesnt trust Sanchez. So, how do you expect to ever win a SB?

03-04-2012, 01:59 PM	#37
ASG0531 Veteran Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 1,804	The issue is kind of moot right now because "Ground and Pound" is the only option there is right now given the QB situation. If Sanchez somehow improves by leaps and bounds and starts proving that he can score a lot of points with a more passing-oriented attack, the Jets will stop grounding and start airing pretty quickly. Your philosophy should fit your strengths.

03-04-2012, 02:49 PM	#38
jetssjumets Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 3,033	[QUOTE=Schroy48;4383585]So, you would rather ensure we continue to get close, rather than something better? That's great logic. 1) We lucked into the playoffs in '09 and we couldnt score fast enough in the 4th to get to the Super Bowl vs. the Colts. 2) We needed to get just 1 yard to get to the SB last year and, in part, we didnt because the Steelers KNEW Schitty didnt trust Sanchez possibly throwing the ball on every down with EVERYTHING on the line. Weeb trusted Namath (who did throw int's), but Rex doesnt trust Sanchez. So, how do you expect to ever win a SB?[/QUOTE] The AFCG unraveled after the missed FG and the injury to Greene who was gashing the Colts, which blows up your theory. Now, please, stop posting/starting threads.

03-04-2012, 02:57 PM	#40
Jet Nut Wise madness is better than foolish sanity.... Hall Of Fame Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Manalapan Posts: 11,377	[QUOTE=jetssjumets;4383635]The AFCG unraveled after the missed FG and the injury to Greene who was gashing the Colts, which blows up your theory. Now, please, stop posting/starting threads.[/QUOTE] And losing a handfull of CB's in Indy. Having the lead at half and passing the ball well in the 2nd half means nothing to the clueless. Letting the Steelers run all over the Jets 24 points in the first half also had nothing to do with the loss and clearly was all Sanchez's fault :eek: