http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/jets/ny-spjchalk265390315sep26,0,7378213,print.story Newsday.com Jets have to sack their 3-4 defense for now TOM ROCK tom.rock@newsday.com September 26, 2007 Eric Mangini said he's been part of "a lot of defenses that have allowed plenty of yards." Not exactly the type of thing that should be printed on the back of inspirational T-shirts. And it's far from comforting for Jets fans who just saw their team give up 424 yards against the Dolphins (who had gained a total of 607 in the previous two games). Mangini's point was about points, that those are how a defense is measured. He does have some leverage for his argument. Some. In 2001, the Patriots' first Super Bowl season, they allowed a whopping 334.5 yards per game, 25th most in the NFL, and held opponents to 17.0 points per game, which was sixth best. In that case, yes, yardage was irrelevant. But in 2003 and 2004, the other two Super Bowl years in which Mangini was an assistant coach under Bill Belichick, the Patriots gave up 291.6 and 310.8 yards per game, respectively, both in the top 10 for those seasons. They were first and second in points allowed. In 2005, Mangini's only year as a defensive coordinator, the Patriots' defense went back to giving up big yardage, allowing 330.2 per game, 26th most. That year, they also allowed 21.1 points per game, 17th most. It's ludicrous to totally discount the relationship between yardage allowed and points scored. Are there anomalies? Sure. Are there teams that can bend but not break? Absolutely. Can some teams gear up when it counts the most, compensate for big plays with their own big plays, count on their offense to cover up defensive deficiencies? Yes. Are the Jets one of those teams? No. The Jets' defense is ranked 28th in yardage after three weeks ... and 27th in scoring. They've allowed a 47.3-percent third-down conversion rate, which ranks 25th. Teams have had 10 possessions inside the 20 against the Jets and scored seven touchdowns, with three field goals. However you break it down, the Jets have a bottom-third defense. And bottom-third defenses don't win playoff games. They certainly don't win championships. The troubling part is they have some top-tier talent that is being wasted in the 3-4 scheme. The Jets have essentially traded in the play-making capabilities of Jonathan Vilma, Shaun Ellis and Dewayne Robertson to make Bryan Thomas the key to the front seven (the same Bryan Thomas who, by the way, has four sacks in the nine games since he signed a late-season contract extension last December and was shut out of the statistics against the Dolphins). The 3-4 defense works. We've seen it work. It's just not working with the players the Jets have right now. A year and a half after Mangini brought it to New York, there are no more excuses to be made about getting comfortable in it or learning the proper fits. If the Jets and Mangini are so committed to the 3-4 defense, then they need to start feeding that scheme the proper players. Robertson as an undersized nose tackle is a failed experiment; there's a reason no other successful 3-4 team is without a 320-pound cornerstone. Vilma as a handcuffed inside linebacker is reaching that same proportion of disappointment. Neither is the fault of the players. The Jets need to abandon the 3-4 as long as they have their current roster. If, during the upcoming offseason, they'd like to return to the 3-4 and make the necessary personnel adjustments, fine. It would be costly but fine. At least then, Jets fans would be able to get a fair sense of the scheme's potential. Until that time, there will be more mismatched talent struggling to find a home in an inhospitable environment. And more arguments about yardage and points not being related. Storylines A quick look at the top stories this week Jones gets stronger It's really no surprise that when the Jets started leaning on Thomas Jones, Jones started leaning on the opposition. "My history has been that I get stronger the more carries that I get over the course of a game," Jones said after his 110-yard performance against the Dolphins that included 92 yards on 19 second-half carries. "You start to get a feel for the game and how the defense is playing and you are able to instinctively do some more things." Now it's up to the Jets to make sure that Jones continues to get those carries. Another challenge for Brick A week after handling Jason Taylor, D'Brickashaw Ferguson is preparing for another test. He'll be lined up against Bills defensive end Aaron Schobel, who had 14 sacks last season, including three against the Jets in their December meeting. "His situation isn't going to change," Mangini said of Ferguson's assignment. "Week in and week out, he's going to face the best pass rusher. It won't get any easier this week. It usually doesn't." Hurtin' Bills? Naturally Of course the Bills are without some of their key players this week. In the first four games, the Jets have yet to face a fully healthy opponent. In Week 1, the Patriots were without DE Richard Seymour and S Rodney Harrison (though those losses have apparently not affected the Pats one bit). A week later, they faced the Ravens without QB Steve McNair or T Jonathan Ogden and with LB Ray Lewis playing with a strained triceps. Last week, the Dolphins had to go without LB Zach Thomas. So is it really a surprise that Buffalo will have to start its backup quarterback and play without rookie linebacker Paul Posluszny? Watch out, Giants. You could be next.
I say we get creative and try to mix it up play to play and game to game. I don't think there's any question that we have a modicum of talent on our D. Why must we declare one formation over another?
I think we try to do that now. The thing is Mangini at least publicly does not seem to care or want to change the defense. Asked after the first 2 games if he made any changes, he said, "No, we just practiced harder and have to play better." I am not challenging his coaching skills but the numbers speak volumes, at least last year we kept the scoring down, this year, it's a just a mess... Trent Green and Ronnie Brown looking like super stars, hell even Boller did ok. Something has to change...
The thing is it's not like we have the personnel to play a 4-3. We don't have any solid pass rushers to play a 4-3. Ellis is nothing special as a 4-3 end. Who would play right end? We all know that Thomas is not a good player in that position. It's going to take multiple seasons but eventually they will have the personnel to excel in the 3-4.
Week 4 is not really the time to be abandoning the defense you've been in for over a year. You make that adjustment in the offseason...
I just don't see a switch happening, I mean when was the last time you remember a defence switching schemes during a season? Although I think this defence would play better under the 4-3, I highly doubt Mangini will make a switch.
What the heck are you talking about? Small LBs are made to put on the outside in the 3-4. Not only is Vilma one of our smallest LBs, he is our quickest, which is just another reason he should be outside. Let the guy rush the passer from all angles of the field. To be a 3-4 ILB you have to be big and able to shead blocks. Vilma clearly has trouble with that. Moving Vilma outside just has to happen.
Hope U have the $$$$$$$$$ to pay his hospital bills after he is run over by those O/Lman coming around the end
You should really think before you speak. With every post, you chip away at whatever credibility remained.
Can't you see how replacing Thomas, Hobson or Barton with Pouha makes us a top 10 defense? It's so obvious.
:rofl: I love it. Right now, Vilma is being forced to take guards (who frequently outweigh the tackles) on straight on, so obviously he'll get slaughtered if he tries to speed rush a tackle. :rofl:
Heh heh. I can't remember an NFL team ever going 5-2 as a base. Scrap Hobson and just use Thomas as the extra DL. You, my friend, are crazy like a fox. :wink:
A Red Fox--we used the 5-2 at Marist when I played there in the 80s. We had a good D too, which we needed because we scored about 3 points/game.
You used to see a lot more 5-2 at colleges back in the 80s. Sadly, I can't think of a school that uses it today. I think it's gone the way of the option in D-IA football, although the option is only a few years gone. It's too bad. Now the only thing to distinguish college ball from the NFL is the talent disparity between teams and the quality of play, both of which do lead to some exciting games. I hope you played on D :grin:
I think he's going with that line of (conventional) thinking that OTs are bigger than OGs, which presents a greater obstacle. But with OGs weighing in at 300+ these days, it may be to Vilma's advantage to have more room to maneuver, even if the OTs are a bit quicker. Either way, I think this is one of Rock's better columns he has written in a while. They wont scrap the 3-4, as i mentioned in my Call out Sutton post, but Rock raises some good points. It's clear the Defense must make some changes, and those changes will have to come from the top down.
I stopped playing after high school (not nearly good enough for D-I football), but had the opposite experience. Possibly one of the best high school offenses in the country, but I played CB on a defense that spent a lot of time on the field thanks to our QB's quick strike ability.
