And claim WE HAVE TO DRAFT OFFENSE OR ELSE WE'RE DOOMED. Disclaimer: I am not claiming the Jets will win the Super Bowl. I am claiming that their formula is not incorrect. Going dominant on one side with a serviceable opposite unit, simply works. History says so. Let's consider this. Added: Brandon Marshall Stevan Ridley Ryan Fitzpatrick OG Help Amaro entering year 2 Now let's consider how we've bolstered the hell out of our defense and just took by far BPA at 6, arguably in the entire draft - Leonard Williams. With possibly being able to add Randy Gregory. Now let's consider if our D can truly step up into a top 3 rank and our offense can feasibly hit the average mark. Now let's consider this... http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/sto...-defense-wins-championships-49ers-stats-picks Study of Super Bowl Champs Shows Dominance on One Side of the Ball is Enough In today’s era of high-scoring offenses and prolific passing attacks, we wondered if an old NFL axiom holds true: Does defense still win championships? So we asked SportsData to look up statistical rankings of recent Super Bowl champions. What it found suggests if a team is elite on one side of the ball, it can get away with being mediocre (or worse) on the other side and still take home the Lombardi Trophy. In other words, defense can win a championship … but offense can, too. To assess defensive vs. offensive dominance, SportsData looked at how the past nine champions ranked in certain stats on both sides of the ball, and then took the average of those rankings. The breakdown: Average defensive rankings of Super Bowl champs since 2003 Rushing defense: 12.6 Passing defense: 13.6 Total defense: 11.8 Red zone defense: 13.0 Sacks: 7.0 Interceptions: 9.3 Fumble recoveries: 12.3 Turnovers: 9.0 Points allowed: 10.6 Average offensive rankings of Super Bowl champs since 2003 Rushing offense: 16.2 Passing offense: 10.9 Total offense: 10.9 Red zone offense: 9.7 Sacks allowed: 11.8 Interceptions: 11.2 Fumbles: 15.1 Turnovers: 12.4 Points: 9.0 The details: — The Super Bowl winner with the best defense over the past nine years was the 2008 Steelers, who had an average rank of 4.8 in the defensive categories. That Steelers team also had the worst offense, with 18.8 ranking in the offensive categories. — The team with the best offense over the past nine years was the 2006 Colts, who had an average rank of 5.0. The 2006 Colts also had the worst defense, with an average rank of 21.9. — Five of nine teams had a top 10 average ranking on the defensive side of the ball. Three teams had a top 10 average ranking on the offensive side. — On defense, it appears that pressuring the quarterback and creating turnovers are more important than total points allowed. The past nine champs had the most statistical success in sacks, total takeaways and interceptions. Six teams (2011 Giants, 2010 Packers, 2008 Steelers, 2007 Giants, 2005 Steelers, 2004 Patriots, 2003 Patriots) ranked in the top three in the league in sacks. Only one team ranked in the bottom half, the 2006 Colts. (But that Colts team did sack Tom Brady three times in the AFC championship game to finally get past their nemesis.) — For takeaways and interceptions, six teams also ranked in the top 10. The 2009 Saints were one of the worst recent champs in points allowed (20th in the league), but they were second in the league in takeaways. Those Saints also had the second best offense of the past nine champs, behind only the 2006 Colts. — For points allowed, five teams ranked in the top four. However, three teams (2011 Giants, 2009 Saints, 2006 Colts) were 20th or worse. - On offense, the highest averages were points scored and red zone offense. In each category, six of the nine teams ranked in the top 10. Here’s how the past nine champs graded on offense (average rank in the nine categories listed above) and defense (average rank in the nine categories listed above), plus their average rank in all 18 categories. The 2004 Patriots had the best total rank and were the only team with both a top 10 defense and a top 10 offense: 2011 Giants Offense: 13.0. Defense: 15.6. Total: 14.3 2010 Packers Offense: 11.0. Defense: 8.8. Total: 9.9 2009 Saints Offense: 8.0. Defense: 13.2. Total: 10.6 2008 Steelers Offense: 18.8. Defense: 4.8. Total: 11.8 2007 Giants Offense: 16.4 Defense: 14.8. Total: 15.6. 2006 Colts Offense: 5.0. Defense: 21.9. Total: 15.6. 2005 Steelers Offense: 10.2. Defense: 8.0. Total: 9.1. 2004 Patriots Offense: 10.0. Defense: 5.9. Total: 8.0. 2003 Patriots Offense: 14.8. Defense: 6.2. Total: 10.5.
If we draft Coleman or TJ Yeldon we should be able to be competitive offensively. The wild card is Geno/Fitz with Chan as OC. No matter what without a top 15 QB it's hard to win a Super Bowl.
which frankly im not sure is GLARING. Fitz is a textbook game manager with low ceiling and high floor. Geno while he has sucked to date, was put in a bad system fit. So we shall see.
Sure. You're saying AVERAGE QB play. That is Fitz to the tee. We have a textbook average QB on our roster already.
Look, we all know that it all comes down to getting competent QB play. If we can get Geno to cut down on the turnovers and complete a higher percentage of his passes, we can be ok. I also sincerely think we need some more young talent on the offensive line.
Agree and I think O line will be a big priority next offseason. You are also asking Geno to be more like Fitz...We already have Fitz. If Geno doesn't show it in TC, make no mistake Fitz is starting Week 1.
Average QB play will make us competitive but not a Super Bowl candidate. Fitz and Geno are slightly below average IMO. Probably in the range of 25-35 in the league.
I hear you on fits... If he can play avg the sky is the limit. To this point our qb play has been terrible.. I almost couldn't picture the defense being put into normal situations. Lol
The study in the OP says otherwise. This is of course assuming defensive dominance and purely average to even slightly below average offensive output.
2010 truly comes to mind. Our D was dominant our offense was truly average on the whole. When considering rushing and passing. If not for a choke job in AFCCG we were in the SB.
I just read a great post on another site and thought I would repost here: "Am I the only one who saw Geno for what he was? Why does the media insist on screaming about the QB situation for the Jets like spoiled brats? Let's just forget that he was a second year QB, and lets focus on the things he fell short of-like being Peyton Manning or at least Russel Wilson. The idea that players aren't any value, unless they're hall of famers in the making, is tiresome if not insulting to the excellent quality that these young players are being compared to. It's like when people say, "why can't he pitch 9 innings? TOM SEAVER pitched nine innings, a lot!" It diminishes the quality of the superstar who are supposed to be a rare commodity. So here's Geno. Disgraced for having a QBR of 0 for the Buffalo game and lauded for having a perfect 158 against Miami. Guess what the median of that is? A 77. Guess what Geno finished with? A 77. That's Geno. A mediocre, middle of the road QB. That's what he's SUPPOSED to be in a second year. Nevermind that he likely would've cracked the 3000 yards mark if he hadn't been benched for a quarter of the season (his own doing, of course, I am aware of that). Nevermind he threw 13 touchdowns and 13 picks which is significant improvement given his rookie season. Nevermind he jumped 11 points in this rating from his rookie season when we were used to seeing Mark Sanchez grow at 2 points a year for his tenure here. Geno is what he is, and no, you don't need a Superstar QB, just a solid one. Geno is now learning yet another offense. This one on paper should suit him. He has a lot more weapons at his disposal and the makings of a monsterous defense to lean on. If the special teams plays solid, I expect Geno to improve further. I'm not expecting the only thing that idiots look for- domination- I'm looking for improvement and a bright future. The only thing fans have is faith. No matter what the word manipulating media would have us expecting. They don't have that insight, expertise, or qualification. They're bloated, arrogant, cannibals who think they're Woodward and Bernstein. Thank god the internet is there for the real fans." You may continue your bickering.......... http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/05/05/new-york-jets-geno-smith-green-lantern/
There are instincts that he just doesn't have. An internal clock, for one- he's completely oblivious to the pocket collapsing around him because he's too focused on staring at his first read. He makes stupid decisions like heaving the ball into traffic praying something good happens when he's under pressure. And when a good QB would step up into a collapsing pocket, Geno sprints backwards to try to outrun the rush, invariably ending in fumbles or ridiculous 17 yard sacks. If you want I can go look up his yards lost per sack numbers and I guarantee its in the league's worst. There are some things you just can't teach and Geno doesn't naturally have them. I could cite way more than the ones I listed but I don't want to waste my time and yours killing the kid.
It will really be interesting to see who starts at QB. We have a playoff worthy defense so I wouldn't expect the Jets will give Smith another gift like Idzik did for the last two years. Let's see if there is a real competition and who wins it.
I think our offense can be around league average with Fitzpatrick starting; with Geno, I think we'll still end up ranked in the bottom ten teams.
I'm fine with the notion of building a dominant defense, and having an average offense until the situation presents itself when you are in a spot to get an elite/franchise QB. The issue is: 1) I don't believe we have a lock for an average offense, and im not sold we have an average QB. In fact i think we have a poor qb(geno) and a dice roll on average(fitz). 2) Our special teams. im not sure that is average to good. and i think if you are going elite D/average offense your specialy teams needs to be good-to-great and not average-to-good. you need to make FGs (we got that part) you need to kill it in punt/punt coverage and you need a very good return game. im skeptical here I dont think anyone woudl have a huge issue with what you outlined if they felt that we would have an average offense and average qb play/low turnovers form the QB spot and excellent special teams. i think few believe this
Please, I'd like to read the additional cites of "way more than the ones..." cause I think you aint got shit else...
fitz is average i guess but he has been more average as far as up and down and inconsitent then he has been consitently average. the '09, '11, '13 versions of fitzpatrick were flat out BAD. he was not an average QB the '10, '12, '14 versions of fitzpatrick were average, and in most cases even good. which version do we get? if you go by his odd/even year this season looks to be a down year. although that is most likely just coincidence. either way hard to say, especially off injury
I think one thing the OP fails to include is special teams. special teams has usually been a big part of elite defensive teams winning the superbowl. the ravens superbowl winner and the bears team that lost to mannings colts come to mind. those teams supplimented their offense with great reutrn games, excellent FG kicking, and outstanding punt coverage
