I've had some differences over the years with the way that Mike Tannenbaum has chosen to build the Jets versus how teams traditionally have built great rosters. We spend too many picks trading up and we trade for too many vets. We patch a position or two every year by going to free agency or the trade market. Generally we're a mess on the offensive side of the ball. I decided to take a look at the best offense in football the last couple of seasons, the Green Bay Packers, to figure out what differentiated them from the Jets. The obvious thing is that they have a 7 year vet who is a great player at QB and the Jets have a third year player who clearly is not. There's no question that's the biggest difference. I decided to look further though and see if there were organizational styles that had allowed the Packers to become a great cohesive offense and that might have hindered the Jets from doing the same. It's too easy to say that Aaron Rodgers suddenly went from good prospect to great QB when he got his chance in his 4th season. What else contributed to that and how might the Jets learn from the example of a team that has made the leap to greatness in the last two seasons? The first big question is where did the players come from on those two offenses? How were they acquired and layered in to form the current groups? This is the Jet's current offensive lineup: WR - Plaxico Burress (34, Free Agent) LT - D'Brickashaw Ferguson (27, #1 pick) LG - Mark Slauson (25, #6 pick) C - Nick Mangold (27, #1 pick) RG - Brandon Moore (31, UDFA) RT - Wayne Hunter (30, Free Agent) TE - Dustin Keller (27, #1 pick - trade up) WR - Santonio Holmes (27, Trade) QB - Mark Sanchez (25, #1 pick - trade up) TB - Shonn Greene (26, #3 pick - trade up) FB - John Conner (24, #5 pick) 3B - LaDainian Tomlinson (31, Free Agent) That's a fairly impressive collection of home grown talent on the face of it. 8 of the 11 guys who start on the field were draft picks or UDFA of the Jets. Brandon Moore is the senior member of the offense at this point and he sits right in the middle of the line where you want stability. The issue that's not so straightforward is how picks have been spent to acquire the drafted players. Three of the players involved tradeups that sacrificed significant depth to make. This is one of the reasons that only 2 out of the 11 starters were acquired with 4th round picks or later, when players tend to be cap-cheaper and have more upside if they work out. Now let's look at that great Packer's offense and see where their players came from: WR - Greg Jennings (28, #2 pick) LT - Marshall Newhouse (23, #5 pick) LG - T.J. Lang (24, #4 pick) C - Scott Wells (30, #7 pick) RG - Josh Sitton (24, #4 pick) RT - Bryan Bulaga (22, #1 pick) TE - Jermichael Finley (24, #3 pick) WR - Donald Driver (36, #7 pick) QB - Aaron Rodgers (27, #1 pick) TB - James Starks (26, #6 pick) FB - John Kuhn (Free Agent) 3B - None (Was Starks before he took the TB job) That's 10 out of 11 through the draft and excellent production from the middle rounds in the process. I couldn't find any tradeups in this group although it is possible there was one. The Packers traded up just last year to get Morgan Burnett on the defensive side of the field so obviously they will trade up for a player they want. Notably the Packers sat in the mid 20's and let their first round picks Aaron Rodgers and Bryan Bulaga fall to them. They didn't move up for Rodgers even as he was slipping in the draft order and falling out of a projected top 10 selection. The same is true for Bulaga who was seen as one of the top tackles in the 2010 draft and then just slipped pick after pick until the Packers nabbed him on the 23. Looking at the two teams a couple of things stand out. First of all the Packers have a commitment to build through the draft and to get full value out of their middle round picks. They don't lightly spend 3rd round picks and later to move up for players they want. This lets them get real value out of the draft as some of their midround picks turn into stars for them and others turn into solid players. Secondly, the Packers gave Aaron Rodgers the best possible situation with his wide receivers, handing him Donald Driver and Greg Jennings - two players who already knew the offense inside and out and had practiced alongside Rodgers for years before his first start. The Jets, in contrast, have no respect at all for the middle to late rounds of the draft. They treat those picks as ways to insure that their higher picks have a better chance of success. This gives them low opportunity to have a player play over his head and create real value on the roster. Those players don't exist on the Jets, they're part of the value of Darrelle Revis, Dustin Keller, Mark Sanchez, Shonn Greene, etc. In addition the Jets trade a lot of draft picks to acquire veteran players who then attrit away, as is common in the NFL, leaving the Jets with no present value for the picks traded. The Jets also have treated the WR position like an interchangeable merry-go-round, trying to plug in several new guys each year alongside their young QB. Obviously the Packer way is more conducive to maintaining value on the roster over time. It also appears to be more conducive to creating immediate value in the form of wins. What other ways are the organizations different in? Do they have different managerial and coaching styles that might explain some of the differences in the performance of the two offenses? After his second season as Packer's head coach in 2008 Mike McCarthy fired most of the defensive coaching staff because the defense was just not performing well enough to justify maintaining the current structure. He had inherited a defensive coaching staff that included Bob Sanders, the defensive line coach who moved up to be defensive coordinator when McCarthy was hired. McCarthy acted decisively in fixing the problems on that side of the ball and the rewards were immediate with the Packers latent talent on that side of the ball emerging and the team becoming a top 10 defense to complement the great offense that McCarthy lead. The Jets on the other hand have allowed offensive mediocrity to become the status quo for them. They've made minimal corrective moves in the coaching staff on that side of the ball and they've gotten to the point that players are calling out the coaches for being, well, mediocre. So the Packers used the draft to accumulate a lot of talent and then they moved decisively on the side of the ball that was holding the team back. Look at the Jets moves in comparison and it's easy to see why the teams are in such different places right now.
Except the Packers defense is terrible this year. It's an interesting comparison, but Rodgers is so good he kinda skews it a little, IMO.
Interesting read, but saying our front office method is flawed doesn't seem fair to me. Yes, I agree that grooming your own talent from the draft is the most desirable way to make a strong team, but the Packers got lucky with Rodgers and Bulaga falling. Props to them for jumping on it. The Jets FO has put together a team that has made back-to-back deep playoff runs. 09 was a bit of a fluke, but '10 Tanny put together a team that was certainly good enough to win it all, it just didn't happen. In regards to the FA and trade acquisitions, we got Holmes from Pitt for a ham sandwich and LT and Burress for cheap. Cro's initial price wasn't that bad either. Chasing after Aso this offseason fucked us, and Tanny thought Wayne Hunter would continue his stout play from last season(which of course he did not). Add Turner getting injured and you have a Line that isn't what they thought it would be. While it was Tanny's fault he overlooked line depth it did not happen due to a flawed draft management in my opinion.
Good write up. But Jets have made smart decisions when getting their guys. We targeted our guys we thought would be ideal for us. Revis, Harris, Sanchez, Greene, and Keller. These guys have been great for us. People consider Sanchez to be a bust, but how many QBs reach AFCCG twice and be in the hunt for third playoff season in a row in his first three season and still be considered a bust? We didn't sell the farm for him either. We got him relatively cheaper than usual. Greene was a third round pick who had done well with a good OL and is doing good again with this healthy OL. Keller has been good, but hasn't been used as much. Don't need to say much about Revis and Harris. Did we give up depth in the process of trading up? Yes, but depth can be picked up via FA. I'd rather get couple of pro-bowl caliber players a draft and pick up a few depth players, than picking up three decent guys and some depth in the draft.
Right on the money there. Nothing is wrong with Tanny's management. Tanny has been outstanding taking care of the salary cap hell and still bringing in some top FAs. OL play hasn't been stout this year, and injuries to Turner and Mangold, your two centers, didn't help the cause either. Mangold's return has shown clear difference in the run game, and pass protection. Playcalling has not been good this year (and I've been a Schotty defender prior to this year). We are not going with the flow and continue to throw the ball when there is no need for it.
Have to finish reading this but... What will Sanchez look like in year 7 and do we have the patience to wait? Fitzharvard & Brees come to mind with Rodgers.
I dont think the Packers defense is great, but its very different. They always seem to be playing from aheade so they play a bend but dont break defense. As long as Rodgers keeps putting up points it will make playing defense easier. But if Rodgers slows down, down the stretch, the Packers D will get exposed.
This. Its one of the reasons the whole DVOA argument went into overdrive last week. As Rodgers is playing lights out the O is head and shoulders above everyone else. However, the D and ST are sub par. If Rodgers has a bad game, the D will get lit up. If they were playing a couple of high powered offenses this year, I am sure that GB would not be undefeated. Brees put what - 35 points on the D the opening game? And most of the games game have been high scoring on both sides with the exception of a couple of sub 20pt games. (Falcons? too lazy to look up)
Nice post. Thanks for sharing. That said, difference makers are what separates great teams from everyone else. Look at '07 - we sacrificed late round picks to ensure we got Revis AND Harris. I don't mind a team that is so confident in their scouting and desire for system fit that they'll sacrifice to get difference makers. Has it cost us? Absolutely. But I'd also argue that the very strategy you call out is what propelled us to 2 AFC title games in 2 years - not something Jet fans are used to. The Packers are better than the Jets because they have a QB in his 7th year who is as good as any QB in the league, and makes everyone around him better. The Jets have a defensive anchor that does the same thing.
put Rodgers on the Jets and we're playing as well as they are if not better. It's all about the QB in this league, we unfortunatley have an average one with a low IQ
The problem with your thesis Br4dw4y5ux is that Aaron Rodgers is unworldly right now. If he were the quarterback of this team, the Jets would be better than 5-4.
Yes but if he was the QB of this team in his third season with rotating wide receivers, depth related weaknesses in the offensive line and Brian Schottenheimer as his guiding light instead of Mike McCarthy he wouldn't be much better than Sanchez, if that. That's my thesis.
Aaron Rodgers skews the whole thing cause he's so good, you could surround him with almost anyone and have success.
Again, he wasn't naturally that good. That's why 23 teams passed on him in the 2005 draft. He got lots of time to learn the NFL game, good coaching, a great setup in terms of his receivers and had the bad side of the ball swept clean for him when it threatened to derail the Packer's ascent.
Yeah but I get the impression alot of teams just missed on him. I know he got to learn for years and all, but there have been guys who have sat, learned and still weren't any good in the past.
It's like Tom Brady. When I saw the fumble in the Oakland game in 2001 I laughed because I had seen him cough up the ball in big games at Michigan also. He was always this semi-awkward, tall QB with a moderate release, not fast, not slow, and not all that mobile. Then he gets one call. One freaking call on the tuck rule and he turns into Tom Brady, the Great. It didn't hurt that he had Belichik and Weis in his corner and that the Pat's defense was loaded for bear and waiting to jell. But I swear if the tuck rule call doesn't happen Tom Brady probably does not keep the job over Drew Bledsoe in 2002 and winds up fighting him for his shot for several seasons just like he had to fight at Michigan. Really strange things can happen when everything lines up just right. Aaron Rodgers is great right now because he landed in the perfect situation. No pressure to start right away. A new head coach his third season who was a QB guru. Two excellent wide receivers that he got to practice with in his one third share of the practice reps (and Favre took less practice reps than any starting QB in the NFL) for two years before he ever set foot on the field. Then to make things perfect for him McCarthy swept out the trash on defense and made the team much better. They may not look very good on defense right now but they were good to great the last couple of seasons and that took a lot of pressure off Rodgers as he was settling in to the job.
