What the Saints have that the Jets dont...
Michael
the Jets could not. And, no... It was not that the Saints had the
better pass rush. I think the Jets hit Manning more than the Saints
did. Even with the rookie qb Sanchez, the Jets still generated enough
offense to win. The Sanits defensive backfield as a whole was the
key.
IMHO, the Jets priority in FA & the draft is DB, DB, DB.
I'm also all but convinced that they Jets defensive scheme can still
do wonders without big money stars on the defensive line so long as
they maintain their level of quality at MLB and SS.
What would your assessment of the Jets DB's be now ???
Revis ?
Lito ?
Leonhard ?
Rhodes ?
Lowrey ?
Strickland ?
MZ
> Obviously, Brees... But... That was not the reason the Saitns did what
> the Jets could not.
The Saints passing game turned out to be one of the better units of the
decade. The Jets passing game was, for the most part, terrible. And
you don't think this made a difference? Brees set the SB completion
record. In the 2nd half, receivers were stretching the Colts DBs
opening up opportunities underneath the coverage. The backs were
getting out in space and breaking tackles. The Jets, when they faced
the Colts, didn't have the QB or the pass catchers to even dream of
doing what the Saints did.
> And, no... It was not that the Saints had the
> better pass rush. I think the Jets hit Manning more than the Saints
> did. Even with the rookie qb Sanchez, the Jets still generated enough
> offense to win. The Sanits defensive backfield as a whole was the
> key.
>
> IMHO, the Jets priority in FA & the draft is DB, DB, DB.
>
> I'm also all but convinced that they Jets defensive scheme can still
> do wonders without big money stars on the defensive line so long as
> they maintain their level of quality at MLB and SS.
>
> What would your assessment of the Jets DB's be now ???
>
> Revis ?
Best.
> Lito ?
Expensive.
> Leonhard ?
Very good in a SS role.
> Rhodes ?
>
> Lowrey ?
>
> Strickland ?
Replaceable. But they'll keep their roster spots.
Michael
> Michael wrote:
> > Obviously, Brees... But... That was not the reason the Saitns did what
> > the Jets could not.
>
> The Saints passing game turned out to be one of the better units of the
> decade. The Jets passing game was, for the most part, terrible. And
> you don't think this made a difference?
It made "A" difference, but not "THE" difference.
Michael
I would not mind if Strickland and Jenkins both go elsewhere. You can
never count on them. Like the Cotls Bob Sanders... You hear how good
he is but where is he ??? When a guy like Jenkins goes out, it
disrupts the entire defense for two weeks or so until they work the
kinks out of the new system. When Strickland went out on the AFCCG,
it probably cost the Jets the game. You can count on him going out
again.. and again... Who needs that ??? Aim the gun at your foot, why
dont you...
MZ
Michael, your logic is like a woman dumping her husband because she
can't stand the heartbreak if he ends up cheating on her. If you dump
him then it doesn't hurt so bad. ??? Makes no sense.
The Jets can't cut anybody right now. Least of all, their pro bowl NT.
A good coach will have contingency plans ready if any of the players
get hurt. Besides, if the Jets had cut Strickland before this season,
they'd have been in the same spot they were against the Colts -- no
Strickland!
It's not like the Jets are cutting other good players to make roster
spots for Jenkins and Strickland...
Michael
If the jets cut Strickland, they could have picked up another guy.
Pro bowl db's not falling out of the sky, but marginal players are
always available. Ones that dont have a history of missing games
every single season.
> It's not like the Jets are cutting other good players to make roster
> spots for Jenkins and Strickland...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I got it... It is better to get stuck at home after having $$$pent on
a car that breaks down instead of getting stuck at home with no car.
MZ
Michael, they could have picked up another guy even if they DIDN'T cut
Strickland. Strickland being on the team does not prevent them from
doing so. If you really really have to get rid of a CB to make room,
then you cut Coleman first.
>> It's not like the Jets are cutting other good players to make roster
>> spots for Jenkins and Strickland...- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I got it... It is better to get stuck at home after having $$$pent on
> a car that breaks down instead of getting stuck at home with no car.
If there was a salary cap still, my opinion might be different (although
I don't think Strickland would be taking up much room...).
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
The whole salary cap thing is a bit of a wild card now, no ??? If
there was indeed to be no cap, or no consequences to going hog ass
wild for one year before the cap came back, I'd say... yeah sure.. let
Woody break the bank. What I'm considering is that it is foolish to
ever rely on a guy that gets injured all the time. If the Jets felt
the same way, they would not have had Strickland on the roster and
would have subsequently made some other arrangements. I really think
it was the loss of Strickland (what a surprise he went out) that cost
the Jets a chance at the Saints. The Jets were on the way to blowing
the AFCCG before the season started by keeping unreliable players on
the roster. IMHO, I'd much rather have a big mouth, or a jack-ass or
a primadonna before I'd have anything to do with player that has
proven he cant make it through a season. Money up the spout and in
the Jets case, a championship up the spout.
Michael
<SNIP>
> Michael, your logic is like a woman dumping her husband because she
> can't stand the heartbreak if he ends up cheating on her. If you dump
> him then it doesn't hurt so bad. ??? Makes no sense.
Forgot to point out. I see what you are getting at, but this is a bit
of a flawed analogy. If Jenkins or Strickland was never injured and I
wanted them to go elsewehere over fear of injury, it would fit what
you are saying... But.. They are indeed injured every single year...
So... What about if the woman wants to divorce the husband was not as
a result of missplaced fear ??? Suppose there were instances for the
past three years ???
2007: The hubby porks a coworker. Wife finds out and gives him another
chance.
2008: The hubby snakes the woman that lives next door. Wife forgives
him again.
2009: He pipes his wifes best friend.
Would it be time for a divorce lawyer yet ???
Dano58
> Obviously, Brees... But... That was not the reason the Saitns did what
> the Jets could not. And, no... It was not that the Saints had the
> better pass rush. I think the Jets hit Manning more than the Saints
> did. Even with the rookie qb Sanchez, the Jets still generated enough
> offense to win.
What the Saints really had was 1) a big drop by Garcon, 2) a terrible
game by Reggie Wayne who was well-covered but made key drops and a
dumb penalty in the end-zone and 3) the Jets-Colts second quarter in
both the third and fourth quarters, where they got very conservative.
Really, if the Colts had played like that against the Jets, they would
have won the Championship and THEY would be the ones who were the
Superbowl losers ;-) I really think it was just meant to be for the
Saints.
Dan D
central NJ USA
Grinch
>Michael wrote:
>> Obviously, Brees... But... That was not the reason the Saitns did what
>> the Jets could not.
>
>The Saints passing game turned out to be one of the better units of the
>decade. The Jets passing game was, for the most part, terrible. And
>you don't think this made a difference? Brees set the SB completion
>record. In the 2nd half, receivers were stretching the Colts DBs
>opening up opportunities underneath the coverage. The backs were
>getting out in space and breaking tackles. The Jets, when they faced
>the Colts, didn't have the QB or the pass catchers to even dream of
>doing what the Saints did.
Both the Colts and Saints Ds were outclassed by the other O.
If either or those teams had half of the Jets D they'd have won going
away.
Of course, if the Jets had half the passing game that either the Colts
or Saints have, they'd be celebrating their second trophy in 42 years.
papa.carl44
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fb1193fa-caac-4191...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Revis is the best there is...as far as the rest go, you have to have
something to go to before you run away from any of them. This idea of just
getting rid of guys with no idea of who will replace them is nuts. Let's
see who becomes available, then we can have a discussion.
Grinch
wrote:
>...
>IMHO, the Jets priority in FA & the draft is DB, DB, DB.
>
>I'm also all but convinced that they Jets defensive scheme can still
>do wonders without big money stars on the defensive line so long as
>they maintain their level of quality at MLB and SS.
Basically a D wants to scheme away from its talent and have its best
talent away from its scheming.
I.e, if you prioritize not giving up any big passes with a scheme that
emphasizes 7 players back in a zone, you want to have bull pass
rushers who can get to the QB on their own, because blitzing would
break your scheme.
The classic example *great* Ds like this were the Steel Curtain, for
which Bud Carson invented what we now call the Tampa 2, and of course
the Tampa teams where Dungy took it after playing for Carson.
That's basically a cover-2 zone with the middle linebacker back in a
short center-field zone too. The scheming is "contain" against the
passing game.
The weakness of it is that with so many players back, there's a lot of
empty space up front, the D-line is not going to get any blitzing
help, and the LBs are likely to be small and fast but not strong.
So the scheme is prone to be pass rush deficient, being pushed around
by a good running game, and vulnerable to a good QB sitting in a
rocking chair ripping apart the open spots in the shorter zones.
The Steel Curtain covered those weaknesses with tremendous talent up
front -- Mean Joe Green and LC Greenwood on the D-Line doing the pass
rush all by themselves, and headhunter LBs Jack Ham and Jack Lambert
making sure no receivers wanted to run into those short open spaces.
So they controlled the line of scrimmage with tremendous raw talent,
then schemed seven guys backward to stop the passing, and were
inpenetrable.
The Bucs' Ds that Dungy built did the same thing with Sapp and Rice on
the line and Lynch headhunting in the short open spaces.
To see how vulnerable that same "killer" scheme is without the talent
up front, one can look at the Dungy-built Colts. They get a pass rush
out of Freeney, but they've always been weak against the run and you
saw what Brees did to them passing-wise yesterday.
And, of course, one can think back to the happy days of Herm and the
Tampa 2 he installed here!
The Ryan family defensive philosophy is the exact mirror image of the
Carson-Dungy model.
Rex throws everything up and through and around the line with all
those blitzes. He did an amazingly successful job of "scheming"
opposing QBs into confusion and fear, with no particularly able
individual pass rushers. Plaudits for that. And when he is blitzing
he has the DBs pinch down tight on the receivers instead of stand back
some for safety's sake, like other big blitzing teams almost always
do.
But the weakness of that scheme is obvious. If a good O reads the D
and holds the blitz out ... well, if anyone but Revis was guarding
that island we'd probably have given up 50 more points this year. And
we saw what the Colts did in the last 35 minutes of that last game
against us.
So this is a very long and roundabout way of saying 'yeah': If Rex is
going to insist on being the league's Mad Blitzer, then his schemes
can take care of the D-front without any big influx of talent -- when
Jenkins, the best DL-man went down, the D performance dropoff was
remarkably small.
But we'd better get the best DBs at man coverage we can get, all four
starters and depth, because the opposing OCs have seen is this D in
action for year now, and they are going to be working on attacking
those islands.
Harlan Lachman
<d11e62c3-bff2-43f7...@b18g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
Dano58 <dan.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
Great Post!
harlan
JK Coney
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fb1193fa-caac-4191...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> the Jets could not. And, no... It was not that the Saints had the
> better pass rush. I think the Jets hit Manning more than the Saints
> did. Even with the rookie qb Sanchez, the Jets still generated enough
> offense to win. The Sanits defensive backfield as a whole was the
> key.
>
The Saints on a typical day score 35 .... Jets on a good day score 17.
That's the difference. 2 TD difference is what beat the Colts.
--
JK Sinrod
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com
Johnny Morongo
of Payton and Lil Schott. Sure, the players DO make some difference, but
not 18 points worth. As of today, Sanchez is NOT Brees, but I at least,
think that he has a lot of what it takes to reach that level in the
years to come.
I don't think that it will be a cake walk to get back to the AFCCG next
year, but we're gonna be in contention for it for many years to come,
and when we finally DO lose Shitty, we'll get to visit the big O-Man
(unless the CIA gets to him first)...
MZ
> JK Coney wrote:
>> "Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:fb1193fa-caac-4191...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>> Obviously, Brees... But... That was not the reason the Saitns did what
>>> the Jets could not. And, no... It was not that the Saints had the
>>> better pass rush. I think the Jets hit Manning more than the Saints
>>> did. Even with the rookie qb Sanchez, the Jets still generated enough
>>> offense to win. The Sanits defensive backfield as a whole was the
>>> key.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The Saints on a typical day score 35 .... Jets on a good day score
>> 17. That's the difference. 2 TD difference is what beat the Colts.
>>
>>
> Right on, John. And this is the difference between the offensive minds
> of Payton and Lil Schott. Sure, the players DO make some difference, but
> not 18 points worth. As of today, Sanchez is NOT Brees, but I at least,
> think that he has a lot of what it takes to reach that level in the
> years to come.
I see nothing, not a shred of evidence, to think that Sanchez can reach
Brees level. Of course, early on Brees himself didn't really inspire
confidence that he would become what he became. And that's a top 3 QB,
head and shoulders above the next tier of QBs. Ain't an easy feat.
Sanchez had a bad year. He might do better next year and the year after
and the year after. Or he might not. I think we need to be careful not
to put too much stock in his draft status. Because he put up a real
stinker this year, and his coaches knew that he wasn't capable of much
more than that. That's why they used him the way they did. And that's
why the Jets team couldn't bring it to the next level.
On the bright side, I think he played reasonably well in the AFCCG.
That's a pretty big metric, so there's definitely room for positivity.
I think he showed some physical skills this year, particularly in the
accuracy department, to make me think that he might become something.
But it's still early. He could be the next Jeff George for all we know.
His decision-making and general understanding of the position are
about as bad as I've seen.
Grinch
>Johnny Morongo wrote:
>> JK Coney wrote:
>>> "Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fb1193fa-caac-4191...@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Obviously, Brees... But... That was not the reason the Saitns did what
>>>> the Jets could not. And, no... It was not that the Saints had the
>>>> better pass rush. I think the Jets hit Manning more than the Saints
>>>> did. Even with the rookie qb Sanchez, the Jets still generated enough
>>>> offense to win. The Sanits defensive backfield as a whole was the
>>>> key.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Saints on a typical day score 35 .... Jets on a good day score
>>> 17. That's the difference. 2 TD difference is what beat the Colts.
>>>
>>>
>> Right on, John. And this is the difference between the offensive minds
>> of Payton and Lil Schott. Sure, the players DO make some difference, but
>> not 18 points worth. As of today, Sanchez is NOT Brees, but I at least,
>> think that he has a lot of what it takes to reach that level in the
>> years to come.
>
>I see nothing, not a shred of evidence, to think that Sanchez can reach
>Brees level.
Neither do I. But he doesn't have to. If he reaches top 25% or 33% of
the league level that will be fine. Top half, I'd take.
>Of course, early on Brees himself didn't really inspire
>confidence that he would become what he became. And that's a top 3 QB,
>head and shoulders above the next tier of QBs. Ain't an easy feat.
Right.
>Sanchez had a bad year. He might do better next year and the year after
>and the year after. Or he might not. I think we need to be careful not
>to put too much stock in his draft status. Because he put up a real
>stinker this year, and his coaches knew that he wasn't capable of much
>more than that. That's why they used him the way they did. And that's
>why the Jets team couldn't bring it to the next level.
He was definitely the limiting factor on the team this year. I still
think if they'd brought in Jeff Garcia, who was available, or some
equivalent QB, just to play smart competent no-mistake control
offense, they could've won 12 games and maybe given the Colts a real
shot in the last one.
Water under the bridge now.
But l also think Sanchez has *way* more potential as a "QB of the
future" than I ever saw in Clemens (which was zilch from his first
play).
Bill Walsh, Belichick, others have said the two absolute requirements
for a QB are (1) throw the ball to a spot accurately, and (2) know
where to throw the ball accurately. (Other good things, like a rocket
arm, being luxury accessories.)
I don't know if Clemens ever had any idea where to throw the ball
because he was too busy throwing bounce passes. Eliminate him right
there.
Sanchez actually made some very nice passes this year when plays
worked as designed. And he made some *very* nice passes rolling to his
right, even in pre-season.
His problem was #2) when he had to think for himself he had no clue,
and when opposing Ds tried to confuse him, boy they succeeded!
But I think that was primarily because he wasn't even inexperienced,
he was a total naif. He played so little in college I think he really
was sort of like a high school QB suddenly in the pros.
He really had that high school star jock attitude, "I've got to make
the big play myself!" and in the first half of the season he was
forcing plays into disasters. The most overt was probably *after* they
got Joe Giradi, no less, to teach him how to slide, and he tried to
run for that first down anyhow and got himself hurt. Then he said, "I
felt I had to make the play!" Geeeze.
Rex talking in the papers after that was the only time I saw any
public indication of Rex being really mad at a player. But it looks
like Sanchez got the message, he was a lot less reckless about forcing
plays after that.
Sanchez looks like he has good personal character. The question is,
can he learn? If he's smart and can learn, ISTM he could become a
good competent QB by say year 3, which is all a Rex-model "win with D
team" needs.
>On the bright side, I think he played reasonably well in the AFCCG.
>That's a pretty big metric, so there's definitely room for positivity.
>I think he showed some physical skills this year, particularly in the
>accuracy department, to make me think that he might become something.
>But it's still early. He could be the next Jeff George for all we know.
Oh, please, he'll never be Jeff George. Jeff was one super-stud
rope-throwing athlete, who was even more of an A-hole team-wrecking
personality.
Sanchez will never have the physical ability of George of Testeverde.
But everyone agrees he's a nice kid who's trying, he's no George.
Let's just hope he has a faster learning curve than Testeverde.
MZ
What I meant about the Jeff George comment was a physically gifted QB
without the abilities in the cognitive part of the game. Granted, the
physical gift is a different attribute in the two cases.
Johnny Morongo
Mark, buddy, you start out in one place and you wind up, certainly by
inference at least, in an entirely different place. Is it:
"I see nothing, not a shred of evidence, to think that Sanchez can
reach Brees level." OR
"I think he showed some physical skills this year, particularly in the
accuracy department, to make me think that he might become something."
You ALMOST compare apples to apples when you imply that they both had
less than stellar first years. But Brees did NOT win two playoff games
as a rookie. And you are right, Sanchez made a quantum leap as a QB in
the AFCCG. His decision making and general understanding of the
position showed more promise in that game than Brees ever did as a
rookie. Dismissing Sanchez as you do to open with is comparable to JC
thinking. ;)
Johnctx
Papa, thanks for the injection of sanity.
Let's put things in perspective. Shepard & Strickland were both hurt all
year. They both are better than any CB we have had since we shipped
Aaron Glenn back to Texas.
Johnctx
Huhhhhhhhh?????
Johnctx
MZ, a shred of evidence is a bit over the top. Here is what we saw:
1. He is an accurate thrower that can make most throws.
2. He appears to be tough.
3. He can move & throw on the run.
4. He does step up in the pocket. I paid to watch David Carr nevr do it.
5. When he was given too much rein he threw into double & triple coverage.
Pennington didn't start until his 3rd year and that was after playing 4
years of college football. Sanchez played 11 college games. His mental
errors are worrisome but I would be more worried if he was like Ryan in
Atlanta who throws unforced picks by over or under throwing.
Our regular season will be up to Sanchez, Schott & Cavanaugh and what
they accomplish in the film room & in his skull.
Ray O'Hara
"Dano58" <dan.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d11e62c3-bff2-43f7...@b18g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
===================================================
Did you see Colston drop an easy Brees pass that killed a drive?
winners overcome those.
the Saints shut the Dolts O down.
MZ
Johnny, there's a huge difference between "Brees level" and "something".
> You ALMOST compare apples to apples when you imply that they both had
> less than stellar first years. But Brees did NOT win two playoff games
> as a rookie. And you are right, Sanchez made a quantum leap as a QB in
> the AFCCG. His decision making and general understanding of the
> position showed more promise in that game than Brees ever did as a
> rookie. Dismissing Sanchez as you do to open with is comparable to JC
> thinking. ;)
I acknowledged that Brees surprised a lot of people. He's the
exception, not the rule.
MZ
Lots of QBs never develop the skills that you think Sanchez will develop
with experience. It didn't seem to me that he developed them over the
course of the season. As Ryan himself said, the playoffs are like
Sanchez's second year.
Johnny Morongo
Brees wins ONE trophy and it sounds like you're ready to put him on the
same level as Brady and Manning as QBs. Where did this man-love for him
come from? I've read most of your posts here since you started to
contribute and I don't remember your creaming in your pants over him
before. Just surprising to me, is all.
Johnny Morongo
And I don't remember your being such a Sanchez hater either. Did Brady
get two playoff wins his first year?
MZ
He's a top tier QB and has been for at least as long as he's been with
the Saints. I think there are 3 top QBs in the league right now, and
then a dropoff after that.
Johnctx
At risk of being accused AGAIN! :) by JM & buRp as the resident excuse
maker for Schott & the offense. They ran with two WR's plus Brad Smith
all year & Edwards showed up late. Turner played the 2nd TE until he
went offside for the 27th time & then Hartsock took over & did the same.
He could never get up to speed but he did so many things well that it
could be just a matter of time & some more targets. i won't be
surprised if Wright, Clowney, etc. get cut & never play again.
MZ
Three. :)
I'm not a Sanchez hater. I just think he sucked this year. That
doesn't mean he'll suck forever. And like I said, there were SOME
positives. But he still sucked.
If the Jets had a real QB, combined with their #1 defense and #1 running
game, there's a strong chance Rex is hoisting a Lombardi over his head
(until he loses his breath and has to sit down).
MZ
I've seen worse supporting casts. He had one of the top running games
in football to take some of the heat off, and (at least) a competent OL
to pass protect. That's more than you can say for most teams. I agree
with you about Edwards, but Cotchery remains one of the most underrated
possession receivers in the NFL, IMO. And although I'm not as high on
Keller as some of the folks in here, he's still a weapon. Yeah, I think
a 2nd TE should be at the top of this offseason's list, and at least one
more receiver.
Looking at it another way... If we were to rank each starter in
comparison to their counterparts around the league, Sanchez would
probably be the 2nd worst on the offense. Hartsock/Richardson is
probably the worst. The other 9 guys are probably average or above
average at their respective positions.
Johnctx
Fair enough, I am not saying he had nothing, I am saying he had some
turmoil to add to being a very green rookie. I guess I have seen some
bad young QB's: Clemens, Carr, Grossman, etc. that never showed Sanchez
the poise & or abilities of Sanchez. Carr possessed some ability but had
the absolute fear of stepping up in the pocket. Clemens & Grosman just
can't pass.
I will say that Payton is probably the offensive answer to the BB's,
Ryan's, etc. Schott better not make buRf & papa look smart.
papa.carl44
"Johnctx" <j...@spamtx.net> wrote in message
news:va6dnRQl1aEX-ezW...@giganews.com...
Isn't it amazing how many really good players get shipped off to somewhere
else and become even better "really good players" ? Good teams recognize
guys they have that are good and find a way to hold on to them. There just
aren't a lot of the Revis type players out there. I live close to Philly.
A LOT of Eagles fans were really upset that Lito was let go, they liked him.
Philly fans can be nuts, but a lot of the blue collar guys I run into do
know football and they follow the team a lot more than most fans do when it
comes to actually watching guys and keeping tabs on them. Another
myth...when they find out I'm a Jets fan...I rarely get any grief, you just
have to know how to walk with the wolves and they leave you alone :-)
Johnctx
Think of the very average CB's we have been dealing with since 2002.
Donnie Abraham squeezed a few last years out for us but outside of that
who even approaches Lito & Strickland? Marty Barret, Ray Mickens?
Most football fans love another good football fan. The really passionate
fans can't standard BS artist & a handful of idiots with 10 beers in
them & one Santa Claus can give a city a bad name.
:)