ShareThis Page

Jets notebook: Colon: Jets abandoned run game too soon

| Sunday, Oct. 13, 2013, 8:39 p.m.

Former Steelers offensive lineman Willie Colon said he was sure the Jets would move the ball against the Steelers' defense. So he was surprised that the Jets went away from the run game early in the second half.

“I definitely feel like we could have stayed with the run game,” he said. “I thought we were being efficient in that aspect of the game. We have to learn from it and move on and get ready for New England.”

The Jets rushed for 83 yards on 20 carries, a 4.2 average. In the second half, they ran the ball just eight times compared to 22 pass attempts.

Red-zone blues

The Jets have fared well in the red zone this season, but the Steelers intercepted quarterback Geno Smith twice inside the 20.

“If you're deep in the red zone and the ball gets turned over, that's going to be an issue.” Smith said.

The issue was primarily the Steelers' pressure on Smith, who completed 19 of 34 passes for 201 yards.

Big miss for Smith, Hill

Smith earned the starting job by making big throws in the second half and rallying the Jets to come-from-behind wins. But with a chance to shift the momentum, Smith missed a wide-open Stephen Hill on a pass that could have trimmed a 16-6 deficit. Hill sprinted past cornerback Ike Taylor and safety Troy Polamalu, but Smith's throw was a foot too long.

“You've got to make the most of your opportunities,” said Hill, who caught only three of eight passes thrown his way.

Defense shines in defeat

The Jets' second-ranked defense held the Steelers to 73 yards rushing and had four sacks — including one on receiver Antonio Brown's attempted lateral pass.

The Steelers averaged only 2.8 yards per carry, but cornerback Antonio Cromartie was beaten by receiver Emmanuel Sanders on the biggest play of the game, a 55-yard scoring pass in the third quarter on third-and-1.

Ralph N. Paulk is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at or via Twitter @RalphPaulk_Trib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.