Let me be more specific here, do you go for a stud in the 1st round or should you consider trading down? Do you want an offensive line that is huge like the Cowboys Super Bowl team or would you go with a smaller more agile line like Denver would employ during their Super Bowl run? Should you be more focused on tackles versus interior lineman like guards and centers. How much of your cap should go into the offensive line? Last but not least who should be your offensive line coach, a position that is truly underappreciated.
Actually many of their receivers over the years have been on the short side. I do remember Belichick once stating that in bad weather were the turf is not so great favors smaller receivers. Had I been interviewing him I would have asked him to explain exactly why. Unfortunately a explanation was not given by Belichick. Maybe by having shorter legs they can change direction better, but not sure if this is the theory.
Had Mangini been given the chance, he might have been a good coach. I think looking back even he would agree he wasn't totally ready to be a HC. But sometimes the best coaches come from coaches that have failed assuming they learn from their mistakes. But a HC is only as good as his coaching assistants.
I know what you mean here. I often hear a player or coach say something and then think of a follow-up question, but the journalist has already moved on to his next question on the list. It's frustrating. On the receiver question, I just think small nippy guys have a lower centre of gravity and can generally function better on poor surfaces, especially in the wet. Short, choppy steps win out over long strides I guess?
Small might not be the best description there, even though small receivers do have advantage there. 1. Not just small, but shifty ones: Can create separation in short/intermediate zone with correct footsteps. Doesn't need to be a burner, but needs agility and quick burst. Not a single "small" receiver that played for Pats as of late lack either, and certainly both. Bigger means more body mass - thus it becomes harder and harder for the bigger player to be elusive and shifty in the traffic. Being small solves both. 2. Easier to go down to the ground: Brady can just aim the ball low enough, so either the WR can catch and is downed, or nobody else gets it. [That fucking weasel Welker... UGH.]
I will say that under Mangini, the product on the field seemed to be improving, and roster depth was certainly improving. He was, as you point out a micro-manager. I think that is the difference here: Mangini was, ultimately, a Manager, rather than a Leader. I do give him the bulk of the credit for the early success that Rex had here-- Mangini built that team, and Rex turned it loose on the NFL. The difference between a Manager and a Leader gets a lot more attention when it comes to QBs, although rarely in those specific terms, but I think it gets overlooked when it comes to coaches. Rex had more than his share of problems--outdated vision, and lack of management skills top that list-- but particularly compared to his successor and predecessor, it's hard to say he didn't have a clear vision and direction for this team, or that he didn't communicate that vision and turn it into a team identity. Whether that identity was a good one or not, and whether that vision was appropriate or not--you can't deny that he got the team to buy in, at least for a few years. I didn't see that from Mangini, and I don't see it from Bowles.
I'm not a fan of zone blocking (finesse) schemes. Often times, it's too easy for them to fail in the crunch. At one time, I think it was when Parcells was the HC, but may have been later, the Jets had a supposedly very good OL, but often times when they needed a key first down, or wanted to run out the clock late in the game, they couldn't sustain drives and run out the clock because their OL couldn't get the job done. Against weaker teams, they could pile up yardage on the ground, but couldn't against the teams with bigger, stouter DLs. I'd want a big OL like the Cowboys, or like the Hogs in Washington were during their day. My major emphasis would be on the OTs , but I'd want them to be pretty equal across the line. After all, if one's OTs were a level or two better than one's interior OL, opposing teams could apply pressure up the middle, where it can be the worst on QBs. If your interior OL were stronger than your tackles, then the edge rushers have a hay day. They'd need to have some agility, but I wouldn't care if my OGs couldn't pull. I'd rather they be straight out maulers up front who can impose their will on opposing DLs. If I were the owner of the Jets or making the decisions, however, I'd leave it up to my CS as to which they favored.
I would think it would be that shorter WRs have lower center of gravity, and thus should have better balance, and be less likely to slip on a slippery or frozen turf.
Okay - I was going to make some stupid joke with preposterous demands, but I'd stop. 1. It all depends on whether Jets can find the franchise QB or not. [I think, with good coaching, Jets already has one. Maybe.] 2. Regardless of whether they have a franchise QB or not, I'd prefer Erhardt/Perkins offensive system. Nowadays, almost every offensive system utilizes some element of WCO, so I am going for a system that presents a significant advantage in communication among players. 3. If the team can find that elusive franchise QB, maybe it's a good idea to build the team around the QB. Since cap space is limited to everybody, maybe the OL will have to be on the smaller/lighter side. They need to be nimble on the feet instead, fluid at the hips and agile all around instead. RB needs to be versatile - with smaller OL, it is not a good investment to draft a stud RB. It doesn't work out. TEs are important, as are WRs with good hands. 4. If the QB is not around, then I'd go the other way around: building up big OL, then getting a good RB [which are a dime and a dozen these days.] 5. As for defense - whether Jets go for 3-4 or 4-3, they will need a key cog up the middle - rather in a bad way. That would be NT in 3-4, and space-eating DT in 4-3. [For instance: Jason Ferguson played both roles flawlessly - one of the low draft gem gift from Bill Parcells.] 6. After that - I'd think defense is almost set. Just this current coaching staff [Bowles and Rodgers in particular] has absolutely no fucking idea how to run a defense. One stud OLB, and one smart ILB are about all they need after NT. 7. What do I want out of this defense? I'd want to see them go after the QB. By percentage, I'd like to see them blitz at least 55% or more on passing downs. Since my preference is rather conservative, this means I'd prefer 3-4, with zone blitz plastered all over. If the NT and Ted are there, Jets can theoretically blitz from almost anywhere; OLBs can come charging in from the edge, or Lee can come flying in from the A-gap for instance. Safety blitz by either Maye or Adams would look real good as well. The key here is, the DL has to hold up against the opposing OL. Currently, their NT is not really eating up the OL, and Jets currently employs no Ted - two Jacks in Lee and Davis. Hence, they get raped up the middle week in and week out. 8. I almost forgot: small OL is not a liability in short-yardage situation. It is if the QB can't run to save his life. There is this lost art called Sprint Option. [Yes - that's THE CATCH play by vintage Joe Montana.] As long as the QB can run for a little [maybe not Brady, but then I wouldn't know] the play presents minimum 3 threats on the play side, and the defense can't guard all three unless they know it's coming. [Blitzing is the only solution against it.]
Zack I know it wasn't easy for you but I am very impressed with your analysis. The fact you are bringing up the Sprint Option of the West Coast offense is pretty cool. Neglecting the fact that the QB needs to possibly run the ball, not something teams want to see for a high price QB these days, it also requires the RBs to be very good blockers. I have actually run this play sprint right option in Madden Football quite often because like you said its a great play for short yardage. The best defense to this play is having a fast defensive end especially in Madden Football. I believe this was a popular play also when Kaepernick was Quarterbacking the 49ers. You don't seem to place any emphasis on the secondary so I am guessing you are trying to build a formidable front7 on defense. What gives here?
You are probably right but what is funny is most coaches prefer taller receivers. Another Belichickean philosophy are skilled players with big hands especially running backs. Belichickean? I need to talk to Webster's Dictionary about this.
In my response that the Patriots tend to have smaller receivers, I did not mean to imply that I disagreed with your idea of having both. As a Pats fan I have always wanted the Pats to deploy bigger receivers, but they probably know what they are doing and don't need to listen to me.
You are probably right, but this is not a theory being advocated by most coaches who want tall studs as receivers. Maybe this subject can be on the show "Sport Science". So does this mean that shorter hockey players will tend to have better skating balance? Sorry, I forgot this was a football forum.
I place bigger emphasis on the safeties than I do on corners, and Jets already have two very good safeties. As such, corners are in the backseat. We all have seen what a top tier corner can do for you - a lot of histrionics, and no trophy to show for. If they so desire, maybe they can draft one from the middle round and coach them up.
He's not a troll. He likes the Jet too, and has been a respectful, knowledgeable poster. As far as I'm concerned, he's always welcome here, and in fact is more welcome than some of the jerks that are Jets fans who post here daily.
If your first paragraph is what the Jets have been trying to do for the last 10 years or so, then it is an utter failure and is not the right blueprint. It has been clearly shown that the Jets have been trying to win with D, and that simply does not work in today's NFL. Teams have to be capable of putting up bunches of points. They have to be capable of sustaining long drives, but they also have to be capable of scoring quickly and from anywhere on the field. That is something the Jets haven't had since the days of Kenny O'Brien (the last time that they really had a potent offense). I'll skip the HC/GM org chart part because we know we'll never agree on that. The Jets need to focus on offense. Screw the D. With the exception of a stud edge rusher, an enforcer at ILB with sideline to sideline range, an immovable force in the middle of the DL, and another starting CB, the D is pretty set. They could quite possibly get that CB and DT in FA. On offense, we need a QB, #1 WR, starting RB, and at a minimum a new LT, a new C, and at least one better starting OG. Unfortunately, Winters was just signed to a big contract, so he's going nowhere, but in an ideal world, I think the Jets should find a completely new starting five on the OL. Keep Shell as depth, but not as a starter. If Leggett can't stay healthy, develop and contribute next season and if ASJ doesn't develop further, then the Jets also need a better TE. On D, the Jets should focus on building an opportunistic D that not only can, but does create TOs to end drives, and scores itself on those TOs. That means they need aggressive play-making types with good hands who are taught how to strip the ball, and that is a key part of their philosophy. They should scrap the 3-4 D. It is just too hard to find that pass-rushing stud OLB. 4-3 pass rushing DEs are plentiful in comparison. Lee would probably be more effective in a 4-3 alignment.
