Last 3 in 2014...

[letekro]

I don't get why people think the Jets are a team that can beat the Pats. They have lost 11 games this year and one of their two wins was against another team with 11 losses. Other than the "This is the Jets' Super Bowl" and "The Jets play the Pats' tough", I have not seen a legitimate argument on how the Jets will even make this game competitive. Personally, I think the Jets have packed it in.

Does the name AJ Feeley mean anything to you? Jets will be playing hard and we don't have the deep threats to blow past the Jets' suspect corners. Of course, the Jets have no shot if we stop their running game.

 

[Deus Irae]

And if Gronk catches the TD or there isn't a completely blown coverage on one play in the first half, the Pats don't die at all. I guess we'll just agree to disagree. In today's NFL, against an offense that is rolling like Green Bay's, there isn't a gameplan on Earth that's going to shut them down. What the Pats did was the next best thing, they just missed on a couple plays.

And "if" Gronk...?

What about "If Redzone" and "if GB's receiver"?

Yes, the Patriots were a Gronk catch from winning that game. They were also 2-3 plays away from getting blown out.

 

[Oswlek]

I remember a home game about a month and half ago where we barely got by the Jets 27-25. How did they make that one competitive?

Rob is clearly being hyperbolic. And team can beat any other team on any given day, and it doesn't require that much of a drop off from their normal level of play to happen. That said, I have to admit to finding these arguments unconvincing. There were several clear factors heading into that game that made it look like a clear anomaly immediately afterward, let alone with two additional months of data. Some of us even said so beforehand.

 

[Ring 6]

Did they do soft zone against Rodgers?

No more zone than the normal mixture.

The Jet game was on a short week, with zero DL depth and having just lost Mayo. I wouldn't consider it predictive at all. Obviously Bill has a precedent that goes beyond just the Jet game, but those are generally the first time they play and/or early in the season.

I've had a feeling about the Jet gameplan ever since, and it seems more and more likely as time goes on.
We played A LOT of nickel against the Jets. Way, way more than we would against a running team, and we did struggle to stop the run.
I think Belichick was thinking outside the box. I think he looked at the schedule that was coming, and all of the top passing teams we would be facing, and realized this was the worst QB and the team most committed to running the ball. He knew we would have to stop the run from nickel against Denver, Indy, GB, SD, etc so he decided to put the nickel out there and expose the run D and find out what he had and what he needed to do, while showing the defense that stopping the run from nickel is something they must become good at.
I can't read his mind but the results tell me my impression was correct, and, it has worked.

 

[Oswlek]

I think Belichick was thinking outside the box. I think he looked at the schedule that was coming, and all of the top passing teams we would be facing, and realized this was the worst QB and the team most committed to running the ball. He knew we would have to stop the run from nickel against Denver, Indy, GB, SD, etc so he decided to put the nickel out there and expose the run D and find out what he had and what he needed to do, while showing the defense that stopping the run from nickel is something they must become good at.
I can't read his mind but the results tell me my impression was correct, and, it has worked.

If this is true then I'd be in even more awe of the man.

 

[RobertWeathers]

We see this every year with the Jets. The first game is always a slugfest and the second game is always a blowout with the Pats usually on the winning end. And the first game was about 6 losses ago for the Jets.

I agree for most of the time. Last year both games were tight. In 2012 what you say happened. Close one in Foxboro. 49-19 in NY.

But they have no heart and lose in the end. And they don't have talent especially if they lost Harvin.

Perhaps. I think a majority of the blame pie goes to the lack of high-end production at QB, RB and WR. Their O line is average as well. Just a bad offensive football team.

 

[Ring 6]

If this is true then I'd be in even more awe of the man.

I'm pretty confident that it is.
Why else would you play nickel against Geno Smith all day?

 

[PatsBoy12]

I don't get why people think the Jets are a team that can beat the Pats. They have lost 11 games this year and one of their two wins was against another team with 11 losses. Other than the "This is the Jets' Super Bowl" and "The Jets play the Pats' tough", I have not seen a legitimate argument on how the Jets will even make this game competitive. Personally, I think the Jets have packed it in.

And we may be seeing a lot of Jimmy Garoppolo in the Buffalo game if the Pats win their next two and the Broncos lose at least one of the next two. The Buffalo game would be irrelevant at that point since the Pats would have locked up HFA in that scenario.

Rob, much respect as you're one of the people I follow most. But I have to disagree here. The Jets do play the Patriots tough and I always respect them no matter their record (I know that sounds crazy). When I attended UF, there were times when we feared Auburn and/or LSU more than the Alabama's and FSU's of the world because we always expected a dog fight from those teams no matter what their record said that season. Did that always happen? No. Did they always beat UF? No. But they had a knack for always frustrating and, at times, beating the Gators. That's how I view the Jets under Ryan.

I don't really expect the Pats to lose any of the remaining games, but I am also not going to become complacent. The Jets and Dolphins split with the Pats last season, albeit the Jets win was on a bogus rule in OT. I guess all I'm really saying is I hope the Pats don't take any of the remaining teams/games lightly. They had a chance for home-field last season and put up a stinker against Miami that gave it back to Denver. I'm hoping for a different outcome this season of course.

 

[Sicilian]

And "if" Gronk...?

What about "If Redzone" and "if GB's receiver"?

Yes, the Patriots were a Gronk catch from winning that game. They were also 2-3 plays away from getting blown out.

Fair points, and I probably shouldn't use the "ifs" too heavily. My point was simply that the gameplan was not a bad one. That execution was off, and I'm sure there are tweaks that will be made, but being within one play of beating a streaking (nearly unstoppable) offense on the road, I have a hard time criticizing the philosophy used.

 

[goheels22002]

Rob, much respect as you're one of the people I follow most. But I have to disagree here. The Jets do play the Patriots tough and I always respect them no matter their record (I know that sounds crazy). When I attended UF, there were times when we feared Auburn and/or LSU more than the Alabama's and FSU's of the world because we always expected a dog fight from those teams no matter what their record said that season. Did that always happen? No. Did they always beat UF? No. But they had a knack for always frustrating and, at times, beating the Gators. That's how I view the Jets under Ryan.

I don't really expect the Pats to lose any of the remaining games, but I am also not going to become complacent. The Jets and Dolphins split with the Pats last season, albeit the Jets win was on a bogus rule in OT. I guess all I'm really saying is I hope the Pats don't take any of the remaining teams/games lightly. They had a chance for home-field last season and put up a stinker against Miami that gave it back to Denver. I'm hoping for a different outcome this season of course.

Remember Suck for Luck? This will be Immolate for Mariota. The Jets want nothing to do with a win at this point.

 

[Sicilian]

Truth be told, and I said as much last week, I really didn't despise that game plan for the Packers the way I normally do. Normally, I see red when we roll that out but Green Bay is a different animal. There's just way too many weapons on the offensive side of the ball to give them an advantage in the numbers game by dedicating a spy to Rodgers. You either have to live with plays off the edge, which are lethal with them, or do what the Pats did and hope you can keep Rodgers in the pocket (which they did) while also being able to knock him off his spot enough to stall a few drives (which they did not). So my primary complaint about that style should not be directed at the Packers game. But for the Dolphins and the Jets? Two teams without the firepower to make you pay dearly for leaving a spy on the quarterback and playing man to man on the outside? I can't stand that. If we lose one of them because we deploy this **** game plan and lose the #1 seed in the process, I may punch and infant square in the face.

Fair enough on Green Bay. I guess my retort to the Miami and Jets games is that they had way more to do with the lack of run defense, and nothing really to do with how they approached the quarterbacks. Neither quarterback lit the world on fire in those games, but were extremely efficient with the ball, a gameplan made possible by the short 3rd down opportunities afforded them by the run game. With better run D, a lot of those 3rd down conversions don't happen. Not to mention in the Miami game it was as much the offense's day to suck as the defense. I don't blame the pass rush philosophy in either case for those losses.

 

[Rob0729]

Rob, much respect as you're one of the people I follow most. But I have to disagree here. The Jets do play the Patriots tough and I always respect them no matter their record (I know that sounds crazy). When I attended UF, there were times when we feared Auburn and/or LSU more than the Alabama's and FSU's of the world because we always expected a dog fight from those teams no matter what their record said that season. Did that always happen? No. Did they always beat UF? No. But they had a knack for always frustrating and, at times, beating the Gators. That's how I view the Jets under Ryan.

I don't really expect the Pats to lose any of the remaining games, but I am also not going to become complacent. The Jets and Dolphins split with the Pats last season, albeit the Jets win was on a bogus rule in OT. I guess all I'm really saying is I hope the Pats don't take any of the remaining teams/games lightly. They had a chance for home-field last season and put up a stinker against Miami that gave it back to Denver. I'm hoping for a different outcome this season of course.

Even if the Jets play the Pats' tough, I give them a 5-10% chance of winning at most. They are not a good team and they are falling apart. The Jets were a much better team last year and the Pats were not as good as this year (and it took a penalty in overtime on a call that has never been called before that game or after that game). I wouldn't put too much stock in last year.

 

[Rob0729]

Remember Suck for Luck? This will be Immolate for Mariota. The Jets want nothing to do with a win at this point.

Especially with the Raiders winning last week. They have a much better shot at the #1 overall pick now.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Remember Suck for Luck? This will be Immolate for Mariota. The Jets want nothing to do with a win at this point.

Fair point. I think the players are still playing hard for Ryan, though, and the rivalry between the teams is too intense for me to believe that they wouldn't try to play hard to beat the Pats. Not to mention that I believe Ryan has a certain affinity for Manning (based on things I've heard him say about both Mannings) and I think he would love to spoil the home-field party for NE. Nonetheless, maybe you're right. In fact, I'm hoping so.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Even if the Jets play the Pats' tough, I give them a 5-10% chance of winning at most. They are not a good team and they are falling apart. The Jets were a much better team last year and the Pats were not as good as this year (and it took a penalty in overtime on a call that has never been called before that game or after that game). I wouldn't put too much stock in last year.

Fair point. We'll see how it plays out. I hope you're right and the Pats close them out early. I just want home-field. It doesn't guarantee a SB berth, but it makes it far more likely.

 

[Deus Irae]

Fair points, and I probably shouldn't use the "ifs" too heavily. My point was simply that the gameplan was not a bad one. That execution was off, and I'm sure there are tweaks that will be made, but being within one play of beating a streaking (nearly unstoppable) offense on the road, I have a hard time criticizing the philosophy used.

The game plan, at first, was basically what I called for (Revis on Cobb, double Nelson with Browner), but it kept Chung on the field instead of a better cover guy, and the Dennard situation, whatever the hell that is, led to Logan Ryan playing, and that's not a good thing. The switch of Revis over to Nelson isn't a big change in things, either. So, I'm not complaining about the back end. McCarty did some scheming that got Cobb loose a couple of times, and GB won the battle of #3-5, so that's a talent problem (other than keeping Chung out there instead of a better cover guy). That nonsense about letting Rodgers have enough time for a couple of drinks and a cigarette or two before throwing, though, was a terrible idea, and it sure as hell didn't eliminate the big play.


Regarding the bolded, again, they were within about 2-3 plays of getting blown off the field, and their end zone drop was a much easier ball to catch.

 

[Sicilian]

The game plan, at first, was basically what I called for (Revis on Cobb, double Nelson with Browner), but it kept Chung on the field instead of a better cover guy, and the Dennard situation, whatever the hell that is, led to Logan Ryan playing, and that's not a good thing. The switch of Revis over to Nelson isn't a big change in things, either. So, I'm not complaining about the back end. McCarty did some scheming that got Cobb loose a couple of times, and GB won the battle of #3-5, so that's a talent problem (other than keeping Chung out there instead of a better cover guy). That nonsense about letting Rodgers have enough time for a couple of drinks and a cigarette or two before throwing, though, was a terrible idea, and it sure as hell didn't eliminate the big play.


Regarding the bolded, again, they were within about 2-3 plays of getting blown off the field, and their end zone drop was a much easier ball to catch.

Again, my argument was not against the defensive scheme as a whole, but more the pass rush philosophy (more contain rather than all out rush like we saw at times against the Chargers). As for the bolded line your post, if I can't use the Gronk non-catch and the uncharacteristic blown coverage on the Nelson TD, then I don't think it's fair to say they could have been blown out. The only fact we know was this was a game decided by less than a touchdown on the road. I don't blame our pass rush philosophy for the loss is all I'm saying.

 

[Deus Irae]

Again, my argument was not against the defensive scheme as a whole, but more the pass rush philosophy (more contain rather than all out rush like we saw at times against the Chargers). As for the bolded line your post, if I can't use the Gronk non-catch and the uncharacteristic blown coverage on the Nelson TD, then I don't think it's fair to say they could have been blown out. The only fact we know was this was a game decided by less than a touchdown on the road. I don't blame our pass rush philosophy for the loss is all I'm saying.

?

You used the phrase "within one play" point in your post. I even bolded it and noted specifically what I was responding to ("Regarding the bolded") with my line about the blow out.

And the pass rush philosophy is probably what cost the team a win.

 

[JMC00]

It's a scared game plan that has us dropping our last two to Miami and nearly cost us the game against the Jets... with Geno Smith at quarterback. I would much rather see man to man on the outside with a spy dedicated to Tannehill. The Dolphins don't have enough weapons to beat that. But instead, we'll stay in a soft zone, let Tannehill and his receivers get into a rhythm, and probably have to hang on at the end. Because, you know, he might make a couple of plays here and there with his feet.

Colts? Andrew Luck?

 

[Halifax_Pats_Fan]

Fair point. I think the players are still playing hard for Ryan, though, and the rivalry between the teams is too intense for me to believe that they wouldn't try to play hard to beat the Pats. Not to mention that I believe Ryan has a certain affinity for Manning (based on things I've heard him say about both Mannings) and I think he would love to spoil the home-field party for NE. Nonetheless, maybe you're right. In fact, I'm hoping so.

Yes, this is when Parcells used to try and find tapes of players on teams that were out of the hunt. He wanted to see how they performed in "meaningless" games. A lot of these Jets should be playing hard, they are building their resume as is Rex. I would be very surprised if they mailed it in.

As I say I think we will be in good shape from here on out but that Jets game may be dicey. There is a lot of danger in motivation, that is how we frequently get beat by teams who are inferior in talent to us, IMHO...