Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: Simplified offense a boon to ______

  1. #21
    It's not going to be that easy to stop our Offense this year. If you think stopping our run game alone, is gonna get it done, you are a FOOL. A simple passing game isn't that easy to stop. WE'RE TAKING SHOTS DOWN THE FIELD THIS YEAR!!! We're gonna roll Sanchez outta the pocket this year. And teams have to spend half the week trying to figure out how to defend our Tebow packages. SIMPLE WORKS PERFECT FOR THE JETS OFFENSE THIS YEAR! And Rex will be calling THE MOST complex Defense ever with the studs we have up front.

    AFC EAST CHAMPIONS 2012-13

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=patsfanken;4476875]Its the same thing on defense. Players will always rather play in an aggressive one gap, attacking style of defense. Its simpler, more fun, and easier than 2 gap read and react styles.

    The problem with "simple offenses" is that they are also easier to defend. Fewer reads from different formations, make it easier on defenses to plan and to coach during the week.
    .[/QUOTE]


    I am not sure that is true. Green Bay's offense is as simple as it gets and it is really difficult to defend. Green Bay runs a single read/dump off offense. It is part of the reason Matt Flynn can throw for 6 touchdowns and 500 yards. It is very basic WC offense.

  3. #23
    Exactly. Green Bay is a perfect example. Their Offense put up huge numbers last year.

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=Raider9175;4477213]jmo That was al Davis philosphy to be very simple on both sides of the ball. My great athletes will simply line up and beat your guys . The problem with that simple approach is you better have better players than the other team everywhere. That hard to do in today's game when there isn't that much disparity of talent from each team.

    JMO I think the name of the game today is confusion not simplicity.
    Both offenses and defenses are so good that if they can know what your going to do they can pretty much devise something to beat it.

    Case In point your going to line up with say the Ravens defense and dictate your will, by being simple on offense. My beast on oline going to move that Dline off the line of scrimmage. Good Luck with that.

    Take the Jets defense outside of CB(they are superior to every team there) where else do the Jets have unbelievable talent on defense. That defense is one of the best due to Rex Ryan devising schemes that the offense not really sure what they are3 going to do. (it a game of chess between a OC and Rex ryan)[/QUOTE]

    Al Davis was way too simple on D after they lost to Gruden's Bucs. To run a simple D You need a lot of super star players. SIMPLE OFFENSE GETS IT DONE.

  5. #25
    [QUOTE=jetswin;4477188]you're talking about the o line, I agree to an extent, but even simple offenses can hide a weakness if the coach knows what he is doing, everything I've read about Sparano since he has been here has been encouraging so I'm optimistic.[/QUOTE]

    No I'm not just talking about the OL. Hill and/or Shillings are going to have to stretch the field, get off the LOS and make defenses pay for loading up. RB are going to have to get to the second level a few times a game and make big plays. A simple O that doesn't create mismatches has to win the one on one battles.

  6. #26
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Manalapan, NJ/Boca Raton, Fl
    Posts
    15,569
    [QUOTE=johnnysd;4477338]I am not sure that is true. Green Bay's offense is as simple as it gets and it is really difficult to defend. Green Bay runs a single read/dump off offense. It is part of the reason Matt Flynn can throw for 6 touchdowns and 500 yards. It is very basic WC offense.[/QUOTE]

    If you're executing any kind of offense it's hard to defend, simple or complicated. To think that a more basic O, without as many options is easier to defend is simplistic.

  7. #27
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    31,151
    [QUOTE=Jet Nut;4477218]Really doesn't matter if its a simplified O or not if the D stops you, does it? Either way you have to adjust and counter what the D is doing. Another thing ****ty wasn't good at.[/QUOTE]

    That's not true wholly; like Hackett, Schotty liked setting up misdirection which is why those O's were so plodding. Thinking of all the long runs we broke off of Schotty's run calling; I think his worst problem was over-thinking. He was the Dusty Baker of the NFL. But he could call a heck of a game in patches. NYJETSCAP listed him as "above average" run-caller during his time with Jets. His passing grades obviously much lower.

    Point being that BS had the goods, but couldn't get out of his own way, imo

  8. #28
    Schotty never took advantage of mismatches. Last year we played against James Ihedigbo twice. We made the Raiders D look pretty good with no Asomuagh.

  9. #29
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Manalapan, NJ/Boca Raton, Fl
    Posts
    15,569
    [QUOTE=WestCoastOffensive;4477365]That's not true wholly; like Hackett, Schotty liked setting up misdirection which is why those O's were so plodding. Thinking of all the long runs we broke off of Schotty's run calling; I think his worst problem was over-thinking. He was the Dusty Baker of the NFL. But he could call a heck of a game in patches. NYJETSCAP listed him as "above average" run-caller during his time with Jets. His passing grades obviously much lower.

    Point being that BS had the goods, but couldn't get out of his own way, imo[/QUOTE]

    I agree, when things were going well the O hummed. But again, if he needed to change things up, when the D was winning the battles, to me Shotty just kept to the gameplan.

  10. #30
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    31,151
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4477361]No I'm not just talking about the OL. Hill and/or Shillings are going to have to stretch the field, get off the LOS and make defenses pay for loading up. RB are going to have to get to the second level a few times a game and make big plays. A simple O that doesn't create mismatches has to win the one on one battles.[/QUOTE]

    I like Shillings, and maybe we can bring back Blake Pence. ;):D

  11. #31
    [QUOTE=WestCoastOffensive;4477451]I like Shillings, and maybe we can bring back Blake Pence. ;):D[/QUOTE]

    I've been hording clam shells.

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=johnnysd;4477338]I am not sure that is true. Green Bay's offense is as simple as it gets and it is really difficult to defend. Green Bay runs a single read/dump off offense. It is part of the reason Matt Flynn can throw for 6 touchdowns and 500 yards. It is very basic WC offense.[/QUOTE]



    JMO Green Bay Packers have a lot of weapons on offense that contribute to that offense being so hard to defend. That has more to do with that offense success than a simple offense approach. So if we assume your theory correct The Miami Dolphins offense should be just as hard to defend as the Packers. (will be running a system very similiar to Packers)

  13. #33
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    31,151
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4477457]I've been hording clam shells.[/QUOTE]

    Me too...I am worried about that 2013 Eskimo Prophesy.

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=johnnysd;4477338]I am not sure that is true. Green Bay's offense is as simple as it gets and it is really difficult to defend. Green Bay runs a single read/dump off offense. It is part of the reason Matt Flynn can throw for 6 touchdowns and 500 yards. It is very basic WC offense.[/QUOTE]

    [QUOTE=Raider9175;4477529]JMO Green Bay Packers have a lot of weapons on offense that contribute to that offense being so hard to defend. That has more to do with that offense success than a simple offense approach. So if we assume your theory correct The Miami Dolphins offense should be just as hard to defend as the Packers. (will be running a system very similiar to Packers)[/QUOTE]

    You're both right, but I really believe that the key to Green Bay's offense is that they're 4 deep at WR and have an elite receiving TE. Jennings, Nelson, Jones, Driver, and Finley. When Driver retires, Jones is already good enough to join Jennings and Nelson in their base offense, and Randall Cobb will be the 4th receiver.

    We're about to find out how good Flynn actually was, and I suspect that most of his success had to do with the embarrassment of riches Green Bay has at receiver.

  15. #35
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Manalapan, NJ/Boca Raton, Fl
    Posts
    15,569
    [QUOTE=Raider9175;4477529]JMO Green Bay Packers have a lot of weapons on offense that contribute to that offense being so hard to defend. That has more to do with that offense success than a simple offense approach. So if we assume your theory correct The Miami Dolphins offense should be just as hard to defend as the Packers. (will be running a system very similiar to Packers)[/QUOTE]

    That wasn't his theory, that a$$ backwards.

    The point is just because its not complicated, doesn't mean its easy to defend.

  16. #36
    [QUOTE=Jet Nut;4477752]That wasn't his theory, that a$$ backwards.

    The point is just because its not complicated, doesn't mean its easy to defend.[/QUOTE]

    Where would you rate Jets offense positions in comparison to ,the division. The Wrs? The Oline. The Qb. The Te ? and last the Rb's. If you rank a lot of them near the top than you probably7 can get by being simple on offense. You rank them near the bottom probably being simple on offense isn't going to get it done.

  17. #37
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Manalapan, NJ/Boca Raton, Fl
    Posts
    15,569
    [QUOTE=Raider9175;4477897]Where would you rate Jets offense positions in comparison to ,the division. The Wrs? The Oline. The Qb. The Te ? and last the Rb's. If you rank a lot of them near the top than you probably7 can get by being simple on offense. You rank them near the bottom probably being simple on offense isn't going to get it done.[/QUOTE]

    We were talking about the concept of a simplified, less complicated O, not whether the Jets can or run that type of O.

    Where all the players rank in the division is meaningless. It how they match up and execute vs a particular opponent on game day.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us