Everyone knows Mangini made the power play for Gholston. That's not a secret. He paid the price for it by being shown the door, that and the december collapse. There's a difference between a Gholston and a Clemens, and a guy like Ropati coming in to be a part of the rotation. And Faneca was the Actually, I was wrong. Rex had a 6th overall defense in 07. That year they went 5-11 and Kyle Boller gave opposing offenses short fields every game. They were 6th in yards, that's what the NFL goes by. Nice try on skewing the numbers. They were 6th. Steelers have horrible OLs. Pats LB depth is equally bad. Packers are an amazing study of having depth everywhere. Packers are an anomaly. He still had to face Wilfork and Warren when they were put on the right side. That happened. Hunter still did his job. Yes, 2010 Faneca. And then it was time to let him go because he was a veteran, and then the question of a downgrade came up, and he wasn't a downgrade. Mason's chemistry has been immediate. Kerley has been a surprise in camp and the consensus is that he's going do well. I can see him catching 25 passes this season as a #4. I see Mason as the #3 as well, and he doesn't have much production to match when it comes to Cotch. Mason's going to be a go to guy for Sanchez if his first read isn't available. It's an illustration of how a rookie takes a full year to start reaching his potential as a football player. In today's NFL, they aren't hard to reach. Ellis is old, we don't know if he was going to continue his dominance. Good news for the Jets is that they still don't have a pass rushing specialst. Westerman can hit Taylor's production and there are no downgrades. The WR corp may be new, but its not filled with unproven guys. Plax is the biggest question mark, and that's a good question mark to have.
I'd like to focus here more on key starters than the whole bench strength issue. I respect those who have concerns about bench strength, as I have had real concerns about that in recent years, but I think those who have argued the Jets are at least average or above in terms of bench strength have the better argument. One poster above in effect criticized the decision to spend money on Cromartie, rather than spread that money around and improve depth. Not only is the above take on the relative strength of the Jets depth relevant to that, I also think it should be obvious to all here by now that Ryan's D, particularly the one he's trying to shape with the Jets last year and this year, depends on two corners who can play man coverage. It's a back to front kind of D, and in answering the OP's question, having Cro back was critical to saying that at least the team will not be set back in that regard. Added to that is what appears likely to be improved play from Wilson and the safeties as a group, particularly with E Smith looking improved, and I think we are going to see the Jets have one of if not the best secondary in the league. Signing Harris was also key to stabilizing the LB's, a concededly less stellar group than the secondary. But all reports also are that Pace should be in better shape, Bart should play as well as last year, and that leaves Thomas as a starter. I'm not a huge fan of his, but he's not awful, either. The DL is where I don't quite share the optimism of others. Plain and simple, I think Ellis's departure will show. I hope I am wrong, but he was the best player for this unit last year. For the OL, I hope Slauson shows improvement, and I frankly am expecting more from Hunter than him, but this is after all one of the two best units on the team. They should be fine, and even staying even is all we need to see from them. Receivers. Cotch's departure will not be missed, imo due to questions about his durability. Questions about Burress will hopefully disappear soon. It's too early to tell, as a healthy Burress will make even a big fan of Edwards's play last year quickly forget him, imo. RB's. I agree with those here who are inclined to see Greene as less than we had hoped for. It's great he cut down on his fumbles, as his rookie year was a real concern in that regard. Meanwhile LT is a year older, and McKnight is unproven. All seem to think the Jets will pass the ball more often this year. I wouldn't say they will have to, but takign some load off the running game will be a good thing. Sanchez. It's reasonable to expect more from him this year, but we don't have any good idea yet whether that will actually happen. I think that summarizes where we are, and don't pretend that all of it has required deep thought or is controversial. My intent was merely to summarize. On balance and in total, I think the team will be at least as good as last year, and will depend on Sanchez's development to be better. Again that is not controversial, I don't think. It is what it is.
So, Gholston was completely Eric Mangini's fault, and Mike Tannenbaum, Mangini's boss, deserves absolutely no blame because he obviously had no say in the matter. Gotcha. I'm gonna leave this point alone, because it really isn't relevant to what we are discussing. I'm not entirely sure what the difference between Gholston/Clemens and Ropati/Wilkerson. All four are players who have not proven to be good enough to play in the NFL, whether as starters or rotational players. When the NFL starts declaring winners based off who gained more yardage I'll care more about that stat. Every team in the NFL has questions with depth. I was just saying that historically the Steelers, Packers, and Patriots have traditionally invested more into players that make up the bottom half of the roster than the Jets. I'm not saying that's the only way to win, but those teams have had a lot of success. Building a winner is hard, but sustaining a winner is even harder. We'll see how Tannenbaum's strategy works for sustained success. How many times did he go up against Vince Wilfork and Gerard (not Ty) Warren? Maybe 10 snaps of the game? The rest were against much weaker players. But the point of this isn't to criticize Hunter's play in that game, as you stated he did his job and he did it quite well. What I'm saying is that a quality game in the playoffs does not necessarily indicate that you are capable of being a quality 16 game starter. What's gonna happen once there is more film for defensive players to study? With more time some of his weaknesses could be exposed, and he could have some real struggles. He might be one of those players who suddenly improves and becomes a better player after he turns 30, but that would put him on a pretty small list of players. He's a question mark, that's all I'm saying. I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk here, but I'm not sure you understand my point. The decision was made to go with Slauson instead of Faneca, and that turned out to be a good one. No one is arguing the FO should have done any differently. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that the Jets' offensive line play did not improve from 09 to 10. In fact, they got worst, particularly in run blocking. So it was the correct move, but they did take a step back because of it. This is something that could happen in several different areas on the Jets in 2011. Shonn Greene didn't reach his potential after a full year. Perhaps McKnight will be the same way. It's also possible that McKnight just isn't that good. 9 QBs last year threw for over 3700 yards and 24 TDs. Mark Sanchez has not proven to be in that class of quarterbacks. It's certainly possible he makes that leap this year, but I'm not willing to talk about it as if it's some kind of guarantee. Ellis was old last year, but he still played a ton of snaps. Now the Jets need someone who can come in and replace those snaps, and play as well as Ellis did last year. If Ropati/Wilkerson aren't up to the challenge, then the team will be worst for it. That doesn't mean they should have given Ellis $4M, or signed Cullen Jenkins, or anything else, it just means they have downgraded from last year. Remember, the title of this thread is "So are we a better team this year?" You won't be better if Jamaal Westerman (1 career sack) can't produce at the same level Jason Taylor did last year. That's hardly an insurmountable task, but for a player that has never played serious snaps outside of special teams, it's a long way from a guarantee.
It's more than that you have guys who haven't played serious snaps, it's that for the most part your backups on the offensive line and defensive front seven are guys who have never done anything, were not drafted, and have been cut/waived/on practice squads time and time again. Tanny can pick the best guys off the scrap heap and Rex can coach them up, but the bottom line is we are going to have to count on a few guys from Dixon/Bellore/Westerman/Turner/McIntrye/Mauga/Ropatai to play, but they're all scrap heap guys who have never done a thing.
"When the NFL starts declaring winners based off who gained more yardage I'll care more about that stat. " I have to take issue with this statement and what it implies. Whether a team wins or loses a game is almost never entirely the fault of the D or the O separately. It's a team sport. If one is focusing on the D separate from the whole team, it is not inappropriate to look at stats that isolate the D's performance from the rest of the team. While yards allowed is not a perfect measure by any means of a team's defensive performance, it is arguably better than points allowed and certainly overall won lost record, particularly if its granted that the O was below average.
This was an intelligent and thought out post. I looked at the schedule last night and I thought "This is going to be a long year" It's brutal..from beginning to end. If the Jets win 10..or even 9 games, they'll be lucky. I know Rex can coach em' up. I like the coaching staff...but I look at the roster, I'm thinking the margin of error REALLY slim. There can't be injuries in key positions or they are screwed. I know it's early,but the lack of depth is a concern. I liked the idea of getting Plaxico, but I was hoping that Braylon would stay. Mason is a good receiver but he's 37-years old. Will he make the same great catches that Jerricho did? Kerley looks good now..but he's really an unknown. The offensive line is good..but I have to admit when I heard Mangold got hurt I had to take a deep breath. Losing D-Wood is going to be huge. Wayne Hunter was a capable backup, but this year he's going to need to step up. Facing Haynesworth and Wilfork twice a year is going to be not an easy task. I have confidence Sanchez will be better this year. But if he gets hurt... The D-line...more questions than answers IMO. How much should they expect of the rookies? The linebackers are solid. The corners are great. The safeties...aren't. I am shocked they are going with Eric Smith. Great hitter..horrible in coverage. They needed to get more athletic. I ws disappointed they didn't go after Dashon Goldson. Anyway...I think alot things have to go in the Jets favor in order for them to make another AFC Championship Game.
I'll have to respectfully disagree. I think you'll find that scoring D is a much better indicator of success than Total D. (not that either is flawless) In their superbowl years of 2001 and 2003 the Pats ranked 26th and 24th in to D respectively. However at the same time they were in the top 5 in scoring D. Very similar to last season, where the Pats D was seriously flawed,for a lot of reasons,, no questions The Pats again were around 26th; (32nd in 3rd down D) But were a very surprising 8th in scoring D. and ended up 14-3 Why this statistical disparity exists is the subject for another thread. But the point is if you HAD to pick one stat, total D or scoring D to gauge how teams end up in reality, I think you would have to go with the latter.
WOW. A little pessimistic are ya? If we win 9 games we are lucky? That would NOT be lucky. I dont care who the hell we face, I would be shocked if we win only 9 games. You keep saying "if" sanchez gets hurt, "if" someone else gets hurt, blah blah blah. Stop with the hypotheticals and realize that the Jets DO actually have great depth. They improved depth on D significantly, maybe, only maybe are we thin at LB. We have solid depth on the O line, a stacked backfield and a good receiving core. Derrick Mason hasnt missed a game in 8 years or so, so screw the fact that he's 37. Plax wouldn't practice before games in the past and he would still beast on game day so it shouldnt be as big of a concern as people are making it. And for Kerley, who cares if he's a rookie and "unknown", as much as I'm hearing, the kid can straight up play and that should be a major plus, not a negative.
I'm not entirely sold on that theory. The report was a result of Rich Cimini's unnamed sources. I'd take that with as big a grain of salt as I take any of his other lumps of digital excrement.
Thanks for the feedback... I'm not really pessimistic. I'm realistic. I'm always in the camp.."aim low and you're never disappointed" Right now...I just don't see this team as a Super Bowl team. I hope I'm wrong...I really do. We have 20 or so weeks to find out.
The guy who gets fired always gets blamed for the bad moves after he leaves. The guy who keeps his job always gets credit for the good ones. It's the way of the world. There are only like 5 people who know who's really responsible for the Gholston pick, they aren't talking, and even if they were they'd probably lie. I'd be more worried if they weren't crushing the rest of their first round picks-Brick, Revis, Mangold, Keller and Sanchez are great picks.
The problem with scoring D as an assessment of the D separate from the team as a whole, which is what we are trying to isolate, is that scoring D will be much affected by field position. That is to the extent field position is at either end of the spectrum. So, for a D coupled with a lousy O, an O that does not move the ball, too frequently has three and outs deep in its own territory, and does not score, the D will get worse field position than one coupled with an effective O. The latter D will see its O scoring more, moving the ball even when it does not, and ending up with better field position. If coupled with an average O, and usually as a result getting average field position, such a D could be well compared with another D that also gets average field position. But AS A GENERAL MATTER scoring D does not take into account field position. The point was made to you that the Ravens team in question that gave up more points than their total D stat might have indicated to be expected was in fact coupled with a below average O. An O that was likely giving the D worse field position than average. Field position is a highly relevant factor in considering overall effectiveness of a D. If you don't agree with that portion of my argument, we will have to agree to disagree. Now overall D has its own limitations. Some D's are better, for a number of reasons, at holding opponents in the red zone, and play a bend but don't break approach before the opponent gets into the red zone. But, while that kind of D is certainly better than one that gives up a lot of easy points, it's not a good thing if it also gives up too much field position, requiring their O to march down the field all the time. And as noted above when comparing teams with roughly comparable O's, points scored is relevant and helpful in comparing. But an accross the board preference for scoring D as the best measure for assessing D's is not justified in view of the foregoing.
Looking back to last year, I think the Jets won all the games they should have, and could have easily won at least two more, maybe three. The loss to Miami clearly was one they should have won. And by that I mean not so much because of the game itself as that they were still in a funk after losing Leonhard, and then the Pats pasting. On balance the game against the Ravens could have easily gone the other way, too. Even the Chicago game. I am not trying to be a homer in saying that none of the wins should have been surprising. So by that measure a team with equal talent could easily do better in the standings. That being the case, predicting only nine wins this year with a team of roughly comparable talent seems excessively pessimistic.
Brian Baldinger broke the story first. Cimini tried to take credit for it. If it only came from Cimini, I would ignore it.
Your point is well made, but to the same extent. Total defense doesn't consider situations like the end of game garbage time For examplle, .Last year vs Cincinnati the Pats were blowing out the Bengals, and playing "prevent D most of the 2nd half, gave up over 200 yds in passing in the 2nd half. That effects Total D as much as field position effects scoring D. Ultimately the most telling argument for Scoring D being a more relevant than total D, was mentioned earlier in this thread. Scoring D is more relevant because THAT is how the results are determined, not who gets the most total yds Interesting discussion, BB. i'm sure there is some web site that might definitively tell us who is right about this. Frankly I'm too lazy to try to find it. Feel free :grin:
I agree, if we lose a key starter at every position the jets will be lucky to win 9 games. Lets hope Sanchez, Leonard, Mangold, Greene, Scott, and Devito don't Get seriously hurt. The jets would be screwed.
If the offense is giving the defense short fields to defend, then the D's yards allowed per game will be the beneficiary. It was a below average defense by Rex Ryan standards. Without having read why that pertains to the 2011 Jets...That doesn't mean he isn't a good coach.
