I am getting frustrated here by you being yet another poster in recent days who seems to have TOTALLY missed the context of my post. I was taking issue with the notion that we should rely on Smith and focus on other positions in the draft. From that, where do you come up with my being willing to make a bad trade to go up in the draft? Or to trade too much for a vet Qb? Not to mention where you REALLY lost it by saying draft Qb in every round and get every available FA Qb. Were you high or something when you posted that? Your post has NO credibility. And who's to say Smith might not be out of the league in two years? I NEVER said the Jets should cut Smith, so that's just another straw man in your ridiculous post. Put down the crack pipe.
They don't guess. When they talk about their grades, if they aren't sure, they just mark the player/play down as average 0.0. If a weird scenario happens that they don't have a historical assignment for, they don't guess, they put it as a 0.0 or average score. It's a pretty highly regarded site when it comes down it, I wouldn't say guesswork when it comes down the OL grades.
it is educated guesswork but still guesswork. The only ones who can accurately grade as those that know exactly what is supposed to happen on each play. The fact that they said we were 30th in run blocking tells me all I need to know. I can't accurately evaluate an OL, you can't, none of us can but when our top 2 RBs average over 4 YPC that is pretty good and certainly not near the bottom of the league.
But it's pretty easy, if a OL gets pushed back or blown up, that's a negative. If we also look at football outsiders who don't view the individual plays, but take a look at all the runs by running backs, the Jets OL for running still grades out as below average. That's talking about the RBs numbers too. The big difference between FO (bottom of the league) and PFF (Average) is the pass blocking. Since FO takes sacks as it's main target instead of watching the play, for FO Geno made the OL look worse by the numbers. Since PFF watches each play, they probably assigned a bunch of sacks to Geno instead of the OL. They both agree our running OL is below average. According to FO one reason that our OL for running might be low is because we depend on the OL to open up big runs more than the RB just creating them.
How do they explain how well we ran the ball w/ one of the worst OLs in the league? we certainly don't have any elite RBs and it's hard to run when you have a bad OL so how did this happen?
Sanchez will always be my guy. lol 2009 - 2010 (Hard Knock days) were one of my favorite times as a Jet fan. Even if he leaves, I'll root for him.
It looks like we ran the majority of our runs (over 50%) to the middle of our line. Here we were average. Then they ran the next highest amount of their runs to the right side of the line where they were bottom of the league. To the left side, the least amount of runs, they were top of the NFL. So since more runs were sent to the really bad right side to the really good left side, it brought the OL run ranking down to 21 for the Jets for FO. PFF grades each player individual and then sums that up into an OL score which is different because it actually watches the plays. So FO says our OL run blocking was below average and they look just at numbers, and PFF says our OL run blocking was below average and they look at plays, I'll trust both of the combined that we were a below average run blocking team. I could delve into further, but I'm not just going repeat what FO and PFF do. If you want to read more about it to see if you agree, they have descriptions (not detailed of course, can't give it away) of how and why they come to their rankings. If you still disagree, send them an email why.
I have an understand of how they grade and I think it is useful, I just don't buy it even though your explanation is reasonable.
Love PFF and FO. I was turned on to PFF last year by a friend. It really does a great job of breaking down a players performance on every play, not just a select few. It goes beyond looking at individual stats. To many people see certain players make a play or 2 that pop up on ESPN highlight reals and then assume that player is good. Or in reference to this thread, watch a QB make a couple plays late in a game and assume they are so clutch and good. Their grading makes perfect sense when you think about it. If somebody gets 12 sacks in a season the take on that player to the naked eye is "he had a really good year rushing the passer". However, what PFF looks at is how many times was he asked to rush the passer? How many times did he pressure/hit the QB when the QB dropped back to pass and he was asked to rush him? Guys like Calvin Pace racked up double digit sacks but in reality weren't very good pass rushers for example. Lots of people are starting to accept their grading system now. I'm seeing more and more mainstream media personalities reference PFF in their articles and reports. It's very similar to sabermetrics in baseball.
If you have an understanding of x's and o's you can grade OL. Yes,there is no way to be 100% accurate because there are many variables that can happen but you can give an effective and accurate grade.
You can have an idea but nothing completely accurate and there's just no way we had the 30th best OL this year when it came to running the football. when stuff like that comes out it makes these OL stats look really bad.
If you have time, you should take a look at profootballreference.com and their "AV" stat. It tries to be an end all be all stat that compares players across positions in a season to see who was the most impactful/best player each season. I've tried to wrap my head around it, and it's tough. Looking at it after it's been applied, it seems to be doing a good job. Sabermetrics is more like FO I think. PFF is a different because it actually watches each and every player to get the grade. Sabermetrics and FO go off a pure number/formula they create. FO is usually very accurate when it comes down to overall teams and units. Their drives stats are also incredibly useful. They show how good a defense/offense is per drive instead of just taking the sum and dividing by games played. It's really fascinating that people are finding ways to quantify what we see on the field. NBA is heavily moving there for a while, so is baseball but in baseball there seems to be more of a struggle between "old school" and "new school" It's been a lot slower shift in the NFL than the previous two sports. As long as people understand they aren't an end all be all, but an actual tool in helping perceive what you see without your own thoughts clouding it up, it's going to be great reading football articles or watching shows that incorporate it.
What I mean when I compare it to Sabermetrics is that it's something that hasn't been widely accepted yet. But I think eventually it will be. It least amongst the media. That AV is actually very interesting. I'll have to look into it a little more, I don't really understand it but I just checked it out quickly. I think all sports move into more advanced stats and ways to look at games as the sport grows and technology continues to get better. People fight advanced metrics but it's kind of hard to do so. They just make sense when you stop fighting them and actually look at them, and what they are telling you.
Article .... For all the promise that Luck, Kaepernick, and Wilson have demonstrated in reaching the N.F.L. playoffs, the sustained excellence of Brady and Manning is very rare. Consider Mark Sanchez. After being selected by the Jets in the first round of the 2009 draft, Sanchez and a team of fine veteran players went to consecutive A.F.C. championship games—and had a 3-2 record against Brady’s Patriots. In 2010, Sanchez led N.F.L. quarterbacks with six game-winning drives. The next two seasons, however, he regressed, throwing an alarming flurry of interceptions and becoming the butt of an infamous N.F.L. collision. He missed the entire 2013 season owing to a preseason shoulder injury that required surgery. At the moment, he is a career fifty-five-per-cent passer, with sixty-eight touchdown passes and sixty-nine interceptions. That portfolio is modest enough for the Jets to cut him from the team. Yet several former players and coaches think that N.F.L. teams in need of a quarterback ought to consider signing Sanchez instead of drafting one of those enticing collegians. “So many times, quarterbacks are the victim of the team they play on,” Vermeil told me. “Sanchez took his team to the playoffs. That means he can do it again. Sometimes it takes moving to another place for a guy like him.” “The fans have beat the hell out of him. Other teams have beat the hell out of him. The quarterback’s not the only one at fault,” Vermeil said. “He takes most of the blame, but normally there’s an accumulation of reasons. Coming out of college, everybody thought he was a fine player. We all saw it.” After leaving the Colts, Tom Moore was hired as an offensive consultant by the Jets, in 2011. The time he spent with Sanchez at the team’s facility left him with a favorable impression of the then twenty-four-year-old passer’s strength of arm, recall, and personality. “I did like him, and always will like him,” Moore told me. “He started out hot. He slipped a little, and then he got injured. I think he is a special talent. You have to do it quick, and he can. He works hard…. Archie Manning was as fine a quarterback as ever went down the pike, and he never went to a playoff game. Not a good quarterback—a great one. Lot of it has to do with the team.” Gannon, the former Raiders quarterback, also worked with Sanchez as an off-season consultant. He found much to admire in Sanchez’s athletic abilities, but like many of the Jets talent evaluators I came to know while writing a book about the team, Gannon questioned Sanchez’s ability to make winning decisions under pressure. The Sanchez I knew was a compelling person, but he was young—and he seemed young; from the first, Brady and Manning were old football souls. Gannon attributes part of Sanchez’s erratic play to the lack of continuity in New York, where he had to adjust to a stream of new receivers, as well as three different offensive coördinators. Brady has played only for offensive coördinators who were promoted through the Patriots system. Similarly, Manning, the Saints’ Drew Brees, and Aaron Rodgers have thrived by playing within one scheme throughout their careers. Sanchez has had to start anew three times. “It’s French to Spanish to Greek,” Gannon said. “Too hard.” Gannon has reason to be sympathetic to Sanchez’s plight: his own experience as a player found him cycling through a series of coaches and systems in Minnesota, Washington, and, finally, Kansas City. “Only after seven years did I finally learn how to break down an opponent,” he said. He signed with Oakland in 1999, where, at the age of thirty-four, he suddenly became a Pro Bowl quarterback. Another late-to-flourish quarterback was Jim Plunkett. Like Sanchez, Plunkett grew up in California, in a Hispanic family. He played college football to acclaim in his home state, winning the 1970 Heisman Trophy, and then came east as a young man. He joined the Patriots, whose yielding offensive line and frequent reliance on option running plays is at least partially to blame for Plunkett’s brutal succession of injuries. But, like Sanchez, Plunkett was tough. Six weeks after a surgery to place a pin in his left shoulder, Plunkett played again and was hit so hard the pin popped out of the bone. New England eventually traded him to San Francisco; the 49ers soon released him. “I was very depressed,” Plunkett told Sports Illustrated’s Rick Telander. But then, in 1978, Plunkett became a Raider, and after two years of reserve duty, at thirty-three, he led the team to the Super Bowl and was named M.V.P. Given their luck with withershins quarterbacks, Sanchez might soon be Oakland’s man. Tom Flores, Plunkett’s former head coach with the Raiders and a quarterback specialist, is one who thinks Sanchez can thrive. “Did all of a sudden Sanchez become a bad quarterback? No.” Flores said. “Jim Plunkett had some of that [adversity]. He didn’t resurface until ten years later. Why that happens is not easy to say.”
I guess we would have led the league in rushing by a long mile if the OL played well enough to be ranked in the middle of the pack.
Yeah, very nice read tbh. Guess all we have to do now is hope Mark's shoulder is fine, and then just wait 10 years or until he turns 34.
The only good memories I have of Sanchez, was in the playoffs, hope he gets released, really no point in beating a dead horse, might as well see if Geno can improve, four years of Sanchez, he couldn't
Very good article....yet I think if you could tell Jets fans that in 2-3 years that Sanchez would be a better-than-average-QB in the Gannon-mold, the majority would STILL want him gone this year. The only thing possible I see: Sanchez comes back, wins the starting QB job and the team gets off to a hot start, OR....he makes the team as the backup and relieves a struggling Geno and gets the Jets on a winning streak. What really surprises me is that all of the people in a position to know insist that Sanchez is a VERY HARD WORKER yet people within the Jets organization (away from the day-to-day team stuff) were telling Adam Schein and others that Sanchez didn't work hard. Clearly, he has enemies in the non-football side of the Jets.
