[QUOTE=avi31884;3468326]I dont remember hearing this excuse when Hackett was running it on first and second 90% of the time. If we go 3 and out again four straight times to start the game we are screwed.[/QUOTE]
Hackett was running that offense without the D to back it up. If we go 3 and out 4 times to start the game, we are only screwed if the D doesn't hold up its end of the bargain.
[QUOTE=doggin94it;3468531]Hackett was running that offense without the D to back it up. If we go 3 and out 4 times to start the game, we are only screwed if the D doesn't hold up its end of the bargain.[/QUOTE]
In 04 the Jet D was 4th in points allowed..:confused:
Having a ground and pound offense does wear down the defense but the key for us will be limiting the Colts offense. We can't afford to fall behind 14+ points so the defense will have their work cut out for themselves this weekend. The best case scenario for us would be if our defense can actually generate some points and take some pressure off of the offense.
[QUOTE=Savage69;3468542]In 04 the Jet D was 4th in points allowed..:confused:[/QUOTE]
Yep. We gave up 261 points that year, of exactly 11,000 scored in the league. League average was 343.75 points, meaning we gave up ~ 76% of the league average D.
But we played an extremely soft schedule that year. We played our 6 divisional games, against opponents who ranked 7th, 25th and 29th in total O (NE, Buf, Mia, respectively). Our other 10 games were against the 6th ranked O (St.L.), 8th (Sea), 10th (SD), 16th (Pitt), 18th (Cin), 19th (Hou), 26th (SF), 27th (Ari), 28th (Cle), and 31st (Bal) ranked offenses.
Compare that to this year. We've played the No. 1, 3, 4, 4, 9, 12, 16, 17, 17, 18, 19, 24, 28, 30, 30 and 31st ranked offenses. That's 5 games against the bottom third of the league (instead of 8 in 2004). Those teams averaged 342 points on the season. We held opponents to 236 points (more than 40 of which were on returns, but lets ignore that). That's 69% of their scoring output.
Bottom line, 2004's defense was good. This year's defense is elite. With a "good" D, you'll get beat playing this style against great offensive teams. With an elite D, this style is viable
[QUOTE=HBJETFANBOB;3468701]Great post, thats why saying the Colts would have won the first game is a joke, by the 4th qtr who can says the Jets won't ware them down and win the game in the 4th like in San Diego.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. 9-3 at the half with us getting the ball? Sign me up.
Sure Schottenheimer's plan started to work in the 2nd half vs SD, when it was still only 7-0, but what I am worried about is what would he have done if SD was up 14-0 by mid-2nd Qtr? Would he have kept being predictable with his only changes being stupid gadget plays and wildcat runs?
Even Phil Simms made a point that SD Def Coord. Ron Rivera knew to double team Edwards when the Jets had [I]1st & 10 at mid-field [/I]in the 2nd Qtr, cause that is the ONLY SITUATION when the Jets go deep to the end zone all year.
I agree with your theory to a point but here is the question. How does getting 3 and outs and having your offense off the field for much of a quarter tire out a defense?
I think if you mix in play action passes you will leave the defense guessing and that will give your runs more of a chance for success. That will have the opposing defense on the field more to tire them out and pound them at the end of the game.
Great post. Here's a quote from Mangold that supports the OP
[QUOTE]Greene evolves into Jets' hatchet man
January, 18, 2010
By Tim Graham
SAN DIEGO -- The New York Jets trailed 7-0 at halftime and were unable to get deep enough into San Diego Chargers territory to even attempt a field goal before halftime.
But Jets center Nick Mangold sensed the game had begun to shift.
"I got a little sniff in the second quarter," Mangold said after the Jets' 17-14 victory in Qualcomm Stadium. "Some things were starting to hit. Then that middle to the end of the third quarter you could feel it. You knew things were going to start turning."
The Jets own the NFL's best rushing offense, but you wouldn't know it early. They ran 13 times for 47 yards in the first half. Starting back Thomas Jones had four carries for 12 yards.
But the Jets kept whacking away.
[B]"You don't go up to a tree with an axe, swing three times and say 'Why isn't it falling?'" Mangold said. "You know what you gotta do to get it to fall. We know that it takes a huge effort. We finally got it to fall."[/B]
Shonn Greene was the lumberjack. The Jets couldn't get on the scoreboard in the first half, but the rookie generated some momentum on one drive midway through the second quarter. He carried six times for 33 yards and caught a pass for 4 yards.
Greene's energy carried over into the second half. Behind a line with three Pro Bowlers -- Mangold, left guard Alan Faneca and left tackle D'Brickashaw Ferguson -- Greene ran nine times for 93 yards, including a 53-yard touchdown run that provided the winning points.
In two playoff games, Greene has rushed for 263 yards. That leads the entire postseason and second only to Dallas Cowboys running back Duane Thomas in 1970 for the most rushing yards in a rookie's first two playoff games.
"We knew it was going to be an uphill battle in the run game," right tackle Damien Woody said. "But we're committed to the run game.[/QUOTE]
I agree with the philosophy of keeping with the running game even if it does not yield results at first. However, as many have pointed out here, if the Jets fall behind by 13 or 14, they can no longer stick with that. If they could somehow have a few longer drives in the beginning of the game, it will really bode well for them (and the damage to the D by the time the 4th Q rolled around would be awesome). Maybe throw a pass or two on first down to loosen up the D a bit.
Basically the Jets style has been working because they've been able to keep the games close. It's fantastic that they fell behind 7-0 in both playoff games and still managed to come back and win. Imagine if they somehow got an early lead?!?!